News - Intel's hexa-core Core i7 980X processor appears at retail

[Shooty*]

Bah - I hate unimaginative questions like this. Just because *you* can't think of something where this would make a difference, doesn't mean that it won't make a difference to other people.

Two more cores equals 50% better performance for what I want to do. It's a pretty major improvement in my eyes.

Bah - I hate impatient answers like this. Just becuase *you* think you know the answer, doesn't mean I do, which is why I asked the question.

If those two cores, indeed, if those SIX cores are each running slower than my four, how is that going to equate to a 50% improvement?

Contribute something useful, or **** off.

[Fraz]

Contribute something useful, or **** off.

No need to throw insults around, we're not in a playground. It's not like I actually called you stupid or anything. Just unimaginative.

You said: "My quad core runs at 3.33 or faster. How will another 2 cores make even the slighest whiff of a hint of a shade of a trace of difference in real life?", which in my mind pretty much boils down to saying "Why bother making anything better than what I've already got?". I mean, progress... who needs it right?

Granted your CPU might run at 3.33GHz or faster. So might the cores on this 3.33 GHz extreme edition 6-core CPU. Hence to all intents and purposes it is 50% faster than yours. We always manage to find a use for the extra CPU power. Ever since Moores law came into being have we found a use for the doubling in processor power every 18 months. And bearing in mind my job deals with analysing a dataset that increases by 100 petabytes per year, I think I really do know why we need this.

[aidanjt]

Ever since Moores law came into being have we found a use for the doubling in processor power every 18 months.

*Mostly* in the form of ever increasingly intolerable bloat.

[Shooty*]

Thank you for the civil reponse.

Now, see, I thought my four cores were running at a TOTAL of 3.33ghz, not 3.33each.

And I'm probably wrong about that.

[badass]

Thank you for the civil reponse.

Now, see, I thought my four cores were running at a TOTAL of 3.33ghz, not 3.33each.

And I'm probably wrong about that.

No apology though?

[kalniel]

Now, see, I thought my four cores were running at a TOTAL of 3.33ghz, not 3.33each.

One and the same.

They're running 3.33 each, and also 3.33 in total. The river's not flowing any faster, it's just wider so more water is being moved.

[Fraz]

Thank you for the civil reponse.

Now, see, I thought my four cores were running at a TOTAL of 3.33ghz, not 3.33each.

And I'm probably wrong about that.

Indeed - they run at 3.33 GHz each.

Apologies for the unimaginative comment then - I didn't realise you didn't know this. I thought you were basically saying "what's the point in something 50% better?", whereas in fact you didn't actually know this was the case.

I guess what annoys me (which obviously isn't what you were saying) is when people basically thing "oh what I've got is good enough... let's just leave things as they are". It's just a bit.... well, sad I guess. The kind of attitude that doesn't get us anywhere.

[shaithis]

Granted your CPU might run at 3.33GHz or faster. So might the cores on this 3.33 GHz extreme edition 6-core CPU. Hence to all intents and purposes it is 50% faster than yours.

To be pedantic: They are the same speed but the 6-core version should be around 50% more powerful