AMD Triple Core Information

[Modred189]

That statement is rather foolish, at least in my opinion.

Man, ease up a bit. You apparently didn't read my question or the rest of the thread. If you disagree ok, but calling someone foolish over a statement I SAID I was doubtful about?

 

[Mohonri]

If that's the case, then why even bother getting anything over a single core?

That statement is rather foolish, atleast in my opinion.

Think about it for a second. Let's say that you have a quad-core cpu that can run at 2 GHz, but if you disable the gimpy core, you can run it at 3 GHz. If you then disable the next-worst core, you're not going to get an equal improvement. It's the law of diminishing returns.

The point is that there are very few situations indeed where software would run better on a slower quad core than on a faster tri core. There are lots of situations where the extra cores won't benefit much, and there are somewhat fewer situations where you'd get similar benefits from both the tri-core and quad-core, but there are very few situations where a slower quad core would give you a significantly larger benefit than a faster tri-core.

 

[Kendrak]

If that's the case, then why even bother getting anything over a single core?

That statement is rather foolish, atleast in my opinion.

We are saying the cost vs the speed might possibly be the highest in the trip core. More so if you OC it. We are not saying multi core bad, we are saying three might be more than enough cores to do what most people are doing on their comps without going paying as much for a quad.

Besides Sup Comm I would probably see no improvement from a trip to a quad. And for the games that I play that are still single thred (most of them) a trip core running 3ghz would be faster then a quad running 2ghz hypothetically at the same price.

 

[bigdavethehorn]

I'd buy one.

My Socket 754 at 2.5Ghz gets a wee bit annoying when it's running Quickpar/Winrar and I try to do something else.

Dual core would be nice, but tri core would be better IMO. Two cores for the OS & running apps and a third for redundancy.

 

[teckgood]

If that's the case, then why even bother getting anything over a single core?

That statement is rather foolish, atleast in my opinion.

That might be a good idea if they weren't too lazy and stupid to continue scaling the clock speeds. For the workloads of the people who post here, a single core 6 GHz processor would be preferable.