OSNews

I've been using dual-core machines since the second shipment of the Athlon X2s. Each of the ones I've used (X2, PPC 970MP, Core Duo, Core 2) has been extremely stable. So IMHO, the claims about errata in these chips are overstated.

In any case, dual core doesn't really make a chip more prone to bugginess. Since the cores are clones of each other, the only additional source of bugs really results from the design of the interconnect/shared cache, which doesn't add that huge amount of complexity.

RE: Is dual-core worth it?

Yes

I believe the reason for dual cores was because they were hitting a ceiling on clock speeds and heat dissipation. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

However dual cores don't double your speed. The only way a dual core will offer you any performance boost is in running multiple application and/or running applications that can take advantage of multiple cores/processors.

Only you can really answer your question. If you have application than can take advantage of multiple cores or you run with a lot of programs running then yes dual cores will make a difference.

I actually can't remember the last time i only ran one program at a time... So your argument is rather VOID.

My understanding is that threads are supposed to be spread across multiple cores (assuming the OS handles it). In that case, wouldn't any application that is multi-threaded take advantage of multiple cores?

An example is I was writing a swing app and made a stupid mistake where I had an infinite loop in my ui code. But since it was operating in a single thread it pegged only a single core and I was none the wiser until I happened to look at my processor usage. I had never set out to write my app for dual core.

The old single-core processors had just as many bugs. There is no way to avoid errata.

What about the propeller chip?
It has eight 32bit cores, and I think no errata at all.
The designers placed all transistors and wiring manually, without use of standard IP blocks or high level design languages. So it is a 'full custom' chip.

From the site:
"We designed our own logic, RAMs, ROMs, PLLs, band-gap references, oscillators, and even ESD-hardened I/O pads"

Of course this does not guarantee it is error free, but as it's a small processor designed totally in house by fanatics, it just might be possible.

Exactly. Designing a CPU without any errata cannot be done, and if anyone says otherwise...well then, make your own damn chips and see how far you'll go before giving up. Designing CPU's/GPU's etc. is not a trivial task, and anyone expecting perfection out of them has his head up his ass.

I built a Core 2 Duo system for a guy I know. I had to show him how to use DeVeDe to create a Video DVD. While it ran it took 50% of the CPU. So we ran two at a time and it took the full 100%. On my single core, it just took the 100%. So yeah, dual core processors are useful. Though of course it helps to have an Operating System that makes proper use of it, even if the programs themselves are only single-thread capable.

The problem isn't dual core, single core or 11-core, it's just you build a beast with a few hundred million microscopic solid state components, linked together by strands a few molecules thick, mistakes can happen. When they are made in hardware, they are harder to fix. The original pentium had problems with floating point calculations. sometimes, mistakes are inevitable.

"