"10,000 cores will not speed up a single threaded app"

[lifeguard1999]

Originally posted by: mikester
I wonder if AMD/Intel have considered multi-core processors with maybe 2 full power cores, plus a couple of less powerful cores to dedicate to things like your firewall or antivirus software. I agree it would be difficult for the average desktop user to utilize 4 high-speed cores, but give me 2 good cores and a couple smaller ones (like maybe 1 GHz each) so that Norton Internet Security doesn't drag my system down as much, and I would be a happy camper.

I think that they will simply add features to the existing cores as time goes on. Use the automobile/airplane industry as an example. They add features (air bags, in-flight entertainment) but the don't get faster for joe user. In the CPU realm, they will add in features like graphics-on-a-chip, HD-decoding, etc.

 

[Unkno]

Originally posted by: George Powell
Two cores is probably the limit of what is really useful on the desktop at the moment. Getting an X2 over a 'normal' 64 probably makes sense to most high performance users.

Although it is a pretty lame article it is a good point. The only thing I could think of using 10,000 cores for at the moment is BOINC, now that would be interesting.

yea, two cores would probably be the limit for a very long time, it's good for making the overall experience more smooth. But, by the time there are very intensive multi-threaded application, there would be a need of an extra core to "smooth" out the experience.

Just my $0.02