“Ever since the first dual- and quad-core CPUs were released several years ago, the procedure for buying processors has involved counting the number of cores in the CPU, counting the number of dollars in your wallet, and then doing your best to match up the values. After all, chips that haven’t been overclocked haven’t gotten much faster than 3.3 GHz or 3.4 GHz, so despite a bit of variance here and there, you’ve generally been able to feel secure that the more cores your CPU contained, the faster it would perform overall.”Here are some more Processor articles from around the web:
- All Core i3 Models @ Hardware Secrets
- All Core i7 Models @ Hardware Secrets
- ASRock X58 Extreme6 and Intel Core i7-970 Review @ HardwareHeaven
- CPU Performance Comparison Guide Rev. 3.1 @ TechARP
- Workstation & Server CPU Comparison Guide Rev. 4.0 @ Tech ARP
- AMD’s New Offers: Phenom II X6 1075T, Phenom II X4 970, and Phenom II X2 560 @ X-bit Labs
- AMD Athlon X2 II 265 Processor/CPU @ TechwareLabs
- AMD Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition: Unlocked and Overclocked @ Hi Tech Legion
- AMD Phenom II X2 560 BE @ Overclockers.com
Finding the multi-core sweet spot
The hot debate used to be about how much RAM was too much and how much was just right. Not too long ago 2GB of system RAM was something to brag about, now no one cares unless you are talking about that much RAM on your graphics subsystem. Now that 64-bit OSes are common as are home rigs with over 6GB of RAM the tech community needs something new to argue about and turned to the obvious target … multi core CPUS. With dual, quad and hexa cores on the market and 16 core CPUs on the horizon; at what point do diminishing returns kick in? ExtremeTech has an opinion, check it out here.
