The thing that's been holding me, and several others is this:donnydonny wrote:As unnecessary as I think having a quad-core machine is, by looking at the price difference... I don't understand why anyone WOULDN'T take the quad. You can get the 2.4ghz E6600 (c2d) for $225 US or the 2.4ghz Q6600 (c2q) for $60 more. Tough choice. IMO, it'd be stupid to "be on a tight budget" for the cpu.
Apparently, on the Intel Camp, doubling up on core count, essentialy halves the memmory bandwidth available to each one. This means that each core in a Quad Core can address half the memmory per cycle, than a Double Core. They try to make up for this, by adding more cache's MB and what not, but it get's mad expensive... it gets Quad2Extreme expensive. Yes, this is the big fuss about the new AMD's Barcelona's... Their Hyper-Transport CPU/Memmory strategy is generally understood as being better ... if only they finally get it mature (up to DDR3 spec) and scaled (up to Quad opterons, in dual motherboard means 8 ... well, I think 6 because one of the Memm. controllers need to talk with the other CPU.. Someone CII'mW)
This line of reasoning is very valid for me, in the desktop realm. For Laptops I am all sold towards the core2duo camp as far as value for the money. Couln't really back that up scientifically. I ad mit it. Still that's were my money will go.
When humans develop some sort of fiberglass-thermal-foreskin for the skin directly above their femur. That and, big easily recharcable non-toxic-waste non-fire-accelerant not-needing-recall non-exploding-fumes-fireball type battery that can last, more than, oh 20minutes or so from charge to charge.SubQ wrote:When we'll see quadcore on notebooks?