Should i get the PC

[Ipquarx]

if this were true. all home computers would instead be "supercomputers" meaning multiple single core processors.

but EVERY hardware developer on earth knows better. and is using the hyper threading now.

if you think you know better then the entire industry, then you should write some emails.

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about; the industry uses more than one core because it wants to make the most out of the current processing power we can produce, and adding multiple cores is the way they can get more processing power.

I'm not saying that using more than one core is a bad thing; in fact I agree that it's a great thing to do; I'm merely stating that according to the facts, if one theoretically had a 20GHz single core processor, it would outperform a quad core 4.0GHz processor.

[Ad Bot]

[Bisjac]

20ghz dosnt even exist (for home pc), it was a crazy example.

but we all know for a fact that a quad 1.0 is way way WAY faster then a single 6.0.

[Ipquarx]

but we all know for a fact that a quad 1.0 is way way WAY faster then a single 6.0.

Do you even math? Now you're just trying to start stuff :/

EDIT: It's useless trying to debate with you, you literally just contradicted yourself and acted like you made a good rebuttal, I'm done.

[Bisjac]

Do you even math? Now you're just trying to start stuff :/

you know that computer hardware dosnt work like that right? you dont just add up the cores and multiply the ghz and say tada! big number!

learn to computer

i would actually prefer a 500mhz processor with 100 cores.
im sure the logistics of making that is pretty out of range. but single processes arent getting harder to run, and likely never will. the future is multitasking, not speed.

[Nickelob Ultra]

Do you even math? Now you're just trying to start stuff :/

EDIT: It's useless trying to debate with you, you literally just contradicted yourself and acted like you made a good rebuttal, I'm done.

bisjac has been working with computers for loving years.  he knows what he's talking about when he says things like

you dont just add up the cores and multiply the ghz and say tada!

[Kingdaro]

you know that computer hardware dosnt work like that right? you dont just add up the cores and multiply the ghz and say tada! big number!

learn to computer

i would actually prefer a 500mhz processor with 100 cores.
im sure the logistics of making that is pretty out of range. but single processes arent getting harder to run, and likely never will. the future is multitasking, not speed.

I love how we've gone from a simple question of "which would run faster" to "you know nothing about computers multitasking is better for the real world everyone is wrong but me!"

[Nickelob Ultra]

I love how we've gone from a simple question of "which would run faster" to "you know nothing about computers multitasking is better for the real world everyone is wrong but me!"

ok i don't even care for bisjac but at this point you guys are just trying to start an anti-bisjac circlejerk here.

multicore processors ARE better.  there's no question about it.

[Bisjac]

I love how we've gone from a simple question of "which would run faster" to "you know nothing about computers multitasking is better for the real world everyone is wrong but me!"

i asked op if he meant single or multi core. because my answer to buying the comp would be different depending what it was.

you guys are the ones thinking big numbers are awsome with no understanding why.

this is why all stuffty brands use large numbers as model lines. because the average person just looks for bigger numbers and buys it. it dosnt mean a thing.

[Kingdaro]

ok i don't even care for bisjac but at this point you guys are just trying to start an anti-bisjac circlejerk here.

multicore processors ARE better.  there's no question about it.

Yes, they do meet the needs of today in a more sufficient manner than single core processors do. That wasn't even the point of the discussion though. In a case where you had a quad core 4ghz processor or a 20ghz single core, the single core would outperform the quadcore, even when taking multitasking speeds into account.

Four programs in a quadcore would run at 4ghz each. On a 20ghz single core, they would run at 5ghz.

[Ipquarx]

The purpose of multitasking is to do things faster
The purpose of making a faster CPU is to do things faster
Multitasking = speed
speed = speed

Processor speed increases give theoretically unlimited speedup
Multiple cores give limited speedup

Your logic is flawed. This is my last say in the matter.

[Nickelob Ultra]

if we're talking about a single core 20GHz sure fine whatever that would do wonderful.  too bad that doesn't exist.

[Kingdaro]

if we're talking about a single core 20GHz sure fine whatever that would do wonderful.  too bad that doesn't exist.

That's not the loving point th-

I'm done.

[Bisjac]

yeah go ahead and bash my rl example guys. quad 1.0 vs a single 6.0

go anywhere on the net and try to start that debate.

[Operator¹]

looks like the thread degraded pretty quickly

[Bisjac]

if it was 300 bucks like i thought someone said. yeah