Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Jun 2007 18:37 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Intel Theo de Raadt wrote about the Intel Core 2 Duo chip: "Various developers are busy implementing workarounds for serious bugs in Intel's Core 2 cpu. These processors are buggy as hell, and some of these bugs don't just cause development/debugging problems, but will assuredly be exploitable from userland code." Intel has given a response to the concerns as well.
Thread beginning with comment 251352
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Is dual-core worth it?
by systyrant on Thu 28th Jun 2007 20:14 UTC in reply to "Is dual-core worth it?"
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Is dual-core worth it?
by jbuchman on Thu 28th Jun 2007 20:48 in reply to "RE: Is dual-core worth it?"
jbuchman Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Is dual-core worth it?
by systyrant on Fri 29th Jun 2007 03:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Is dual-core worth it?"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

How do you figure. The only way multiple cores or multiple processors will benefit the end user is if those multiple programs are hammering away at the processors or cores. If you are running multiple programs that sit idle most of the time then dual cores are waisted energy.

What benefit is somebody going to see who is running a word processor, a browser, an e-mail client, and solitaire on a system with multiple cores? The answer is none. Outside of maybe a few cases none of those are going to tax the processor to the point that it slows the system down.

Most games currently available can't effectively take advantage of multiple cores either and would benefit more from a higher speed processor. I know a lot of gamers and I can't say that I know to many of them that run multiple apps while playing games.

I suppose you can bring up all the services that run from boot to shut down, but none of them tax a system either. So I think one can make a fairly good argument about not buying a dual core system. Some people benefit from multi-cores and some people would benefit more from a higher speed single core.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Is dual-core worth it?
by babernat on Fri 29th Jun 2007 02:30 in reply to "RE: Is dual-core worth it?"
babernat Member since:
2007-02-21

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Is dual-core worth it?
by systyrant on Fri 29th Jun 2007 03:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Is dual-core worth it?"
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

That's probably the idea, but I've read a few articles about bad thread programming even from seasoned pros. Most developers have never had to deal with multiple threads and thus have trouble writing efficient multi-threaded programs.

However, in your case having a single processor or core would have help you find the error faster. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1