AMD not heading the multi-core route like intel is...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The General said:
You don't understand. Programs have threads, right now on my single core Athlon XP 2700+ I am probably running 100-120 threads. If I had 120 cores, then each thread would be running continuously and the processor wouldn't need to time splice.

More and faster cores is the way to go.

Then how come people say "a 4000+ is better for gaming(than an x2 3800+)"

I'm just asking for clarification, not saying you are wrong or anything.
 
The General said:
You don't understand. Programs have threads, right now on my single core Athlon XP 2700+ I am probably running 100-120 threads. If I had 120 cores, then each thread would be running continuously and the processor wouldn't need to time splice.

More and faster cores is the way to go.

How much time and skill would it need to be able to program something like that? There aren't that many apps programed for multi-core CPUs now, let alone ones for 120. I know that in the future this could probably not be the problem, but the question is: Are developers going to take the needed steps towards supporting multiple cores (to the point where there are dozens of cores)? And not taking shortcuts and make a real multi-threaded app.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom