The Future of CPU's
If your even the slightest bit of a "tech-head", or if you just keep up with the latest IT trends, then you'll remember several highlights along the path of your upgrade history:
2000 - The year you bought your first >1Ghz processor
2001 - The year you bought your first >2Ghz processor
2002 - The year you bought your first >3Ghz processor
But what about the year you bought your first >4Ghz processor?
Well, it hasn't gotten here yet. And according to Cnet, it will be quite some time before we do see this type of jump in processor speed.
Due to size, heat, and power restraints, both AMD and Intel are going to a multi-core architecture for their latest CPU's. But what does this mean for the consumer?
Basically, if you do a lot of multi-tasking (i.e. running many different applications at the same time) this could be a huge boon for you. Windows will pass the different applications to the different cores and will attempt to balance the load. You basically get 2 computers for the price of one.
However, if you are the type of person that runs one very processing intensive program, moving to these new CPU's may actually degrade your computing experience. Why? Because most software is not written as "multi-threaded". Multi-threaded applications are those that are designed to take advantage of multiple CPU's or cores. Without this multi-thread design, only one core of your CPU will be utilized. Chances are, this one core has less processing power than your old processor if you've been staying up-to-date on upgrades.
The problem is: no one is making this information known. It is almost like a dirty little secret. AMD and Intel want to sell you a new processor, and will do anything to make is seem like you are getting more power than you really are.
AMD is the worst offender with its "4600+" and similar naming schemes. "4600+" Supposedly means that it runs comparable to a 4.6Ghz processor, which may be true if you are running 4 different applications. However, if you are running one power intensive application, you may be better off staying with what you already have.
2000 - The year you bought your first >1Ghz processor
2001 - The year you bought your first >2Ghz processor
2002 - The year you bought your first >3Ghz processor
But what about the year you bought your first >4Ghz processor?
Well, it hasn't gotten here yet. And according to Cnet, it will be quite some time before we do see this type of jump in processor speed.
Due to size, heat, and power restraints, both AMD and Intel are going to a multi-core architecture for their latest CPU's. But what does this mean for the consumer?
Basically, if you do a lot of multi-tasking (i.e. running many different applications at the same time) this could be a huge boon for you. Windows will pass the different applications to the different cores and will attempt to balance the load. You basically get 2 computers for the price of one.
However, if you are the type of person that runs one very processing intensive program, moving to these new CPU's may actually degrade your computing experience. Why? Because most software is not written as "multi-threaded". Multi-threaded applications are those that are designed to take advantage of multiple CPU's or cores. Without this multi-thread design, only one core of your CPU will be utilized. Chances are, this one core has less processing power than your old processor if you've been staying up-to-date on upgrades.
The problem is: no one is making this information known. It is almost like a dirty little secret. AMD and Intel want to sell you a new processor, and will do anything to make is seem like you are getting more power than you really are.
AMD is the worst offender with its "4600+" and similar naming schemes. "4600+" Supposedly means that it runs comparable to a 4.6Ghz processor, which may be true if you are running 4 different applications. However, if you are running one power intensive application, you may be better off staying with what you already have.
posted by Tom at 11:11 AM
1 Comments:
As a hard core multi-tasker this actually sounds like good news to me!
Post a Comment
<< Home