View Single Post

Steelshivan · 05-12-2008, 02:10 AM

Thanks for the input last poster. I'd like to stress that this thread is only about my take on effective core speeds relative to the original P4 for each processor, it has nothing to do with adding up the cores or anything else...just how fast each CORE is. Obvously if I left out the fact that the dual and quad-core processors had more than one core, I would have been "corrected" on that...hence my X2 and X4 afterwards.

If someone wants to start a thread on multi-core processors and try to use benchmarks and tons of variables/stats to determine percentages of certain cores being used, and in what fashion, go for it. I'll probably post there with my input. But this isn't the thread for it.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm not a big fan of when misunderstood people put words in my mouth.

05-12-2008, 02:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
Steelshivan Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 264	Thanks for the input last poster. I'd like to stress that this thread is only about my take on effective core speeds relative to the original P4 for each processor, it has nothing to do with adding up the cores or anything else...just how fast each CORE is. Obvously if I left out the fact that the dual and quad-core processors had more than one core, I would have been "corrected" on that...hence my X2 and X4 afterwards. If someone wants to start a thread on multi-core processors and try to use benchmarks and tons of variables/stats to determine percentages of certain cores being used, and in what fashion, go for it. I'll probably post there with my input. But this isn't the thread for it. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm not a big fan of when misunderstood people put words in my mouth. Last edited by Steelshivan; 05-12-2008 at 02:13 AM.