Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th May 2006 22:43 UTC
Permalink for comment 125762
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-15
I just came to think that I didn't notice anyone saying even single-threaded apps will gain something from these multi-cores. Sure, running a single single-threaded app on a 8-core 2ghz CPU would be as fast as running it on a 1-core 2ghz CPU, but one must remember there are constantly other task running on the system, too. The OS itself, for example, could be running on one core, the app on the other. Atleast under Linux, you don't need to do anything to run multiple single-threaded apps evenly across all the cores, and as such, all of them will have a bit more CPU-time for themselves. But yes, multi-threaded apps will have the biggest performance improvement with multi-core.

And to take a stand on the Celeron D versus Sempron:
I'd go for a Sempron any day. Why? Well, HyperTransport (similar to FSB) is lightning fast. Integrated memory controller. 64-bits, which Celeron D apparently isn't. And, I quote stormloss: "Celeron D is sse3 and in my part of world cheaper than the Seperon." Well, does this "Seperon" support 64-bits, 3DNow! or 3DNowExt? I don't think so. Besides, having support for one extension doesn't make it faster than one with support for other extensions. The price itself isn't a good reason, either. I just checked, the Sempron is about 5 euros more expensive