How far will processors go? I feel that there is some limit of usage we would experience like when there is a quadcore 2.4 GHz processor which is sufficiently fast for most people then who would ever need to upgrade their PC again (save money )

procs will either go multithreaded(multiple threads per core, multiple cores per processor) or increase in speed (subjected to semicon advancements)

do u think todays Qcores & latest gpu can cope VR?
so it's have plenty of room to enhance more.. to fulfill the needs..
don't worry everage users will be forced to keep buying then..

in the future i think we will run MP and no more UP,and maybe UP the highest can go to Octa-Core.

for now maybe Quad is enough,for the upcoming application will need at least 8 core,who knows?

WE NEED SEX CORES DAMMIT!
The future depends on the outcome of the technology race between intel and AMD tho. Not to mention software devs. What good do having a multicore system when the software cannot take advantage of it?

Yeah, agree with linkinstreet, majority of the software dev havent really fully utilize the usage of multiple cores proc yet.

I think normal PC users nowadays dunno even have the typing skills to utilize one single core. Ka ka ka.

Lemme get this straight. In single threded software, single core proc @ 2.6G will be faster than 2.6G multi-core proc? and y izit?I mean, shouldnt multicore have their "auto-balancing" feature? or w/ single threaded apps/software, only 1 core will be working hard n the others will be in idle mode?

I think if Intel or AMD can make software think of their multicore cpu as one, it would be a lot easier. Many companies would be reluctant to spent money to get their programs to recognise multicore.

you don't need to. It will just use single core as default.
It's never about recognise multicore, but to UTILISE all of it so that it will become faster.

Yeah I also heard that a Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz Extreme Edition and other high tech single core processors is quicker than some dual cores ( I'm not pretty sure what is it either Intel Or AMD ). I also don't know why

its benchmark dependant leh...and pentium 4 3.0 EEdition will still lose to a celeron 4xx series oced to 3.0ghz except for maybe cache dependant benchmarks

What the Is that possible?! Celeron OCed to 3.0GHz? Wow. What's the difference with Pentium D and Pentium Core 2 Duo? Anyway about the topic there still a majority of softwares that did not take advantage of the quad cores speed.

damm, i still using single core

Why is that a problem? I'm also single core. Just don't have enough money to change to dual core. A lot changing including my mobo.

It's not about the speed, but how the software utilises the extra cores. if the software can use all teh cores possible, even a 1.8Ghz Dual Core can beat a 3.0Ghz single core.

not necesarily... the "auto-balancing" feature actually slows down the the process so tat things won teleport here to there...

tat would be AMD X2 and Pentium D's... they are freaking slow... juz imagine... PD 3.0 + 512MB RAM does 44sec on 1M SuperPI tat's almost same wif AMD X2 3800+ at almost same price... while Intel Celeron 420(Conroe-L) 1.6GHz which is basically C2D wif single core and 512Kb cache does 38 sec... and my frenz rig(which i built) did 28sec at 2.8GHz...

there's no Pentium Core 2 Duo... and Quad Core is juz a race/war subject/battlefield between AMD & Intel... Software Developers juz couldn't keep up... Maybe Norton can since it eats up 3quarter of most average rigs's resources...

ok, its a noob question, so is multicore proc actually will make watever we r doing more faster, or allowing us 2 do multi tasking more smoothly? or even both..?

The ideal scenario is both. Right now, it's leaning more towards multi-tasking gains (the average pc user scenario), whereas the next (harder) step would be to utilize all processor cores for speed gains.

2x Xeon Quad Core 2.66GHz for server
24GB RAM
10x 146GB SAS



Attached thumbnail(s)