Back in 2005, when the first dual-core CPUs were seeing the light of day, they didn't offer much in the way of tangible performance increases because there was so little desktop software available properly supporting them. In fact, most dual-core CPUs were slower than single-core CPUs in a great majority of tasks because single-core CPUs were available at higher clock speeds.
However, that was four years ago and a lot has changed. Many software developers have since been hard at work optimizing their applications to take advantage of multiple cores. Single-core CPUs are actually hard to find and two-, three-, and four-core CPUS are now the norm.
Which begs the question: how many CPU cores are right for me? Is a triple-core processor good enough for gaming, or should you splurge on a quad-core chip? Is a dual-core CPU good enough for the average user, or do more cores really make a difference? Which applications are optimized for multiple cores and which ones react only to specifications like frequency or cache size?
Hvis man kigger på spiltestene så kan man se at triple-cores slet ikke er så dårlig en idé. Det giver mærkbar ydelse fra dual-cores, men med den 4. kerne er der meget lidt at hente.
Der er jo mange af programmerne, hvor Quad jo også er hurtigst, så det er nu stadig at foretrække. Lidt en skam de ikke har testet med en Core i7 som også kan drage nytte af HyperThreading - bare for at få det med.
apopo kernen snarken 3# var lige med i en undersøelse af HW på steam og der var godt nok mange der sider med en singel core der bruger steam enu men det er vil CS de spiler 🙂
9# det komer jo and på hvordan du ser på det vis fuld udnøtelse det er af et given program skal bruge 8 kerner så ja der går nok noget tid men af man bare kan læse og læse ting over på cpu ford den har så mange kener så er det jo dejligt med nolge exstre kerner jeg kan godt bruge mine 4 100% iverfal ❤ og det er jo først nu af der er mange programer der kan bruge 4 kerner