Phlog no offense but the truth is that you suffer from wishful thinking. You did say that it would be good to have the cpu perform all tasks including GPU. This is not good for a few fundamental reason which i will not reiterate. No sense in repeating whats been said.
Oh, please do reiterate, and tell me why four processors in the CPU isn't as good as one processor plus a GPU, and don't just focus on graphically intensive computing, like games, please tell me when a GPU is of any use outside of games.
Another thing that you apparently do not realize is the clock speed wall that has been or will be hit.
Dude, any wall applies to single cores the same as it applies to quads.
That is all there is to it. For ione thing there is a bottleneck w\ memory bandwidth, another is simply heat. Unless every PC will ship refrigerated then you are simply dreaming.
I'm typing this up on a quad while ripping a DVD, and I've still got the heating on, John, I'm not huddled over the base unit. Heat is clearly NOT an issue. Also, looking at my performance monitor, no, I have no bottlenecks throttling my performance.
And i know plenty about parallelization...you really think i am stupid?:shrug:
Clearly, you don't seem to grasp that a GPU is just a single use of a parallel processor!
also, why does the GPU sit there doing nothuing? what do you think lights up the pixels on your monitor?
The GPU isn't always fully utilised is it? It's a hardware solution, for a problem you don't always have (needing to render graphics quickly). Software solutions, are more flexible, ie, using a processor to render graphics when needed, and using the same processor, running a different task (like DVDFab), when fast high quality graphics aren't required, like, when I'm just web browsing.
ME: bottom line: single core is better than dual or quad barring the obvious limitations. ”
I've got four 2.4Ghz processors in my inexspensive media centre box, I'm currently typing on. What's the fastest single core available? 4+Ghz? I've got 4x2.4Ghz, = 9.6Ghz available, and as Windows runs multiple processes, one core can run 100% of an app, while the others run the windows tasks. Please tell me how many applications require a single processor, because they run faster, and then tell me that's the case for most home or even business users to make you point.
I will tell you this - there is a point of diminshing returns when it comes to multiple cores.
Depends on the application, obviously. Home users, quad core is more than enough, but having built a Beowulf cluster before, more is always better.
Oh, and also, please tell me why the entire computing industry is favouring multiple cores, if they are wrong, John. Go on, that should alone should be the focus of your reply.
