Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drothgery" data-source="post: 3514041" data-attributes="member: 360">Well, that's almost true for Intel CPUs, if you ignore discontinued products (3.4 GHz and faster Pentium 4s, mostly) and  budget or ultra-low-voltage products (1.5 GHz and slower Core Duos and Core 2 Duos, mostly). But it's certainly not for AMD; the 2.6 GHz single-core Athlon 64 4000+ will beat the 1.9 GHz dual-core Athlon 64 X2 3600+ in almost anything that doesn't take much advantage of a second core (which includes most games).At least, they will for mainstream desktops, notebooks, and servers.Now, this is wrong. The only reason we didn't see a generally available 4GHz CPU last year was because Intel didn't want to explain why its old 4 GHz processor wasn't as fast as its new 2 GHz processor. If I were to bet, the first widely available 4 GHz CPU will be in the 3rd-generation Xbox or the PS4; IBM seems to be heading down the high clock speed/do less work per clock cycle path with their high-end server CPUs, and both the PS3's Cell and the Xbox 360's Xenon are derived from IBM's server CPUs. But it's a near certainty that Intel and AMD will eventually release 4 GHz desktop CPUs.A majority of PCs sold last year were dual core. Current roadmaps from Intel and AMD suggest single-core will be confined to the extreme low end (Celeron/Sempron) and ultra low voltage products in the future. Because of some fundamental programming issues which limit the usefullness of adding extra CPUs in many cases, it's likely that quad-core is probably the endgame of adding more cores for desktops and notebooks (though not for servers).</blockquote>

Verification