Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougSF30 who wrote (228186)	3/16/2007 12:19:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

You could have, but dual core chips are more likely to give some benefit to normal users than quad core. The speed of each core doesn't have to go down as much, and you get diminishing returns as you go to more cores. A lot of software will only use one core, but the base load of the OS and system functions, and anti-virus software etc. can run on the other. You probably don't need three cores to run that stuff. Also when you consider consumer software that does support multiple cores, a lot more of its supports 2 cores than 4. For many server loads 4 cores can make sense, for systems designed to run specific highly highly threaded software it can make sense as well.

To: dougSF30 who wrote (228186)	3/16/2007 12:53:18 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Doug, You could've made the exact same argument about dual core chips vs. single core. At that time, single core chips didn't collapse to the levels Intel is proposing them to collapse. SC chips were introduced in 2005, and the pricing didn't collapse until 2006, a year later. What I was critical of was that AMD capped the normal SC chips (non-FX) at 2.4 GHz, while SC chips were capable of reaching 3.0 GHz. I don't know what DC Conroe is capable of, regarding clock speeds, but if I were in a market for a high speed CPU in Q3, with $900 budget, I would much rather chose a 3.4 GHz Conroe than 2.6 or 2.9 GHz Kentsfield. As far as usage of DC processors, the most perceptible one I have found is where a weird pringing bug in Windows stalled my PC under SC, but it no longer does that in DC. DC has most likely worked around some deadlock. As before, on a rare occasion when my PC crawls to a near standstill, it is because the HD is bottleneck. Joe