On 1/10/06, Marc G. Fournier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm going to assume that Dual Core is better (can't believe that they took > a step back) ... but, is how does it rate? I know that HyperThreading is > definitely != Dual CPU ... but how close does Dual Core get?
There is extensive evidence (google for that, please), that HT is even slower than a single core in quite a few applications. Moreover, the whole HT implementation has been shown to be a security risk. In the near future intel is going to spend $1.9bn on its new marketing campaign. If you wanna be part of it, buy their CPU, half of the money will be in your nearest billboard. Dual-core is a new, and a very smart concept, which is exactly equal to a dual-cpu configuration in terms of performance per core - plus it provides a huge cut down on power consumption, and a theoretically hugely faster interconnection between the cores (they are physically many times closer). By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
