Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Sep 2010 20:32 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Intel On a Windows Vista or Vindows 7 disk, all versions of the operating system are present, from Starter to Ultimate, and everything in between. So, if you want too upgrade to a more capable version of Windows down the road, all you need to do is pop the Windows disk in, let Windows Anytime Upgrade do its thing, and you're done. It seems like Intel is experimenting with a similar technology... For its processors.
Thread beginning with comment 441717
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Who cares
by Morgan on Mon 20th Sep 2010 02:05 UTC in reply to "Who cares"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'd prefer the opposite myself: a 1.8GHz dual core system tends to feel faster than a 2.8GHz single core, and will run cooler too. That's based on my own experience of course. Certainly, tasks like video encoding -- which a lot of people who own iPods and other such devices do daily -- benefit much more from multiple cores than from astronomical speed ratings.

Of course, I've always been of the opinion that parallelization is the future of high speed computing. One day we'll have a commodity priced 16-core single CPU at 1GHz per core that will outperform the fastest hexacore system available today, with much less power draw.

Edit: Sorry ozonehole, I didn't see your post about 16-core chips, I just pulled that number out of my head. I like your thoughts regarding ARM taking over. ;)

Edited 2010-09-20 02:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Who cares
by nt_jerkface on Mon 20th Sep 2010 03:17 in reply to "RE: Who cares"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I'd prefer the opposite myself: a 1.8GHz dual core system tends to feel faster than a 2.8GHz single core, and will run cooler too.


I agree and this is due to one core being available even if the other is choking on a process. But for the typical user a single core @ 2ghz is fine if it is a recent processor. I do think all computers should come with a dual-core and 3+ gigs of RAM but mainly because OEMs pre-load them with so much crap and leave auto-scanning on.


One day we'll have a commodity priced 16-core single CPU at 1GHz per core that will outperform the fastest hexacore system available today, with much less power draw.

That could take a long time due to diminishing returns. Only in gaming has software become more demanding. Most consumer software runs fine on a P4. There is more incentive for Intel and AMD to sell dual and quad cores as long as they can at the commodity level and keep trimming the die. People have enough power, what they want is more battery life.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Who cares
by Morgan on Mon 20th Sep 2010 03:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Who cares"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

People have enough power, what they want is more battery life.


That was what I meant by "much less power draw". ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2