Replies to post #48368 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[spaarky]

Not in applications that can't use 4 cores which is the majority.

But that's already true today with dual-core vs. quad-core, so how does tri-core make any difference? It's going to be outperformed on properly multi-threaded apps by quad-core (even if the quad-core is lower frequency), and outperformed on non-threaded apps by higher clocked dual-core.

I see this (again, if it happens) as a bizarre segmentation play that isn't going to help AMD at all in the long term, and is a waste of engineering resources.

-=spaark=-

[mmoy]

> Not in applications that can't use 4 cores which is the
> majority.

The vast majority can't use two cores. But dual core is a win because of background OS processes that can make some use of the extra core and because users frequently run a few applications at the same time.

I generally can't max out an X2 5600+. CPU usage is 5% on average unless I'm running a build. And my system is at the low end of Intel's midrange. I personally don't plan on buying a quad core anytime soon unless it becomes useful to me or the cost over dual core is next to nothing.

[Tenchu]

Mas, > Like in applications that can't use 3 cores which is the majority.

Fixed.

Tenchu

[sheriffbakanay]

I don't think you are taking into account the issues of K10 having lower IPC on the desktop than Penryn and being clocked slower.

I doubt the Tri-Core will make up for that and slot in between Intel's Dual and Quad Core offerings, certainly not at the prices you have suggested.