Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Really, one usually needs to go far out of their way to make use of that second core, like compiling something from their IDE while rendering something in their NLE. This isn't very common... |
Knife, I'm going to disagree with you a bit on that. I say it's less about going out of their way than getting ahead of their system. Multi-core or multi-cpu systems have a wonderful additional headroom that has to be tried to be enjoyed. (Or tried to know if it's a benefit.) Some users sit waiting for one task to grind to a halt while others with the same job will flop out to explorer and open a few windows and a refresh their browser, etc. and grow impatient while the system clunks & grinds. They might have the same job but do things in different ways, and multi-core just handles that personality type better.
At the end of a tax year I once upgraded my/our six employee systems with BP-6 boxes. We were short one cpu for a small server so pulled one of the employee's. He didn't notice, and he wasn't any newbie. That started a sort of "Trading Places" bet where we partners would pull an employee's 2nd cpu and bet if they'd notice. Some did, some didn't. It seemed more about personality type than expertise or taste. We partners sure as hell noticed it, even those running normal desktop apps, but we were all interrupt-driven fiends to some degree.
There are certainly times where a faster single core is more appropriate, and dual-core isn't SMP, but given the right system specs much of the headroom improvement is similar. To me the decision has to include the expected tasks
and the specific user.
I guess the short version is that some people are just more multi-core than others, even if their app list wouldn't normally indicate a benefit.