spicy food makes me poop faster

Naked girls make me blow my load faster.

Muta: Naked girls make me blow my load faster.

Oh you don't even have a vision of what the future holds for your testicles.

Scientists look to sperm to power nanobots
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22333518/ (pops)

Soon you'll be squirting millions of nanobots all over every available pornographic surface.

Not everyone's a techie, smitty. I don't think my grandmother knows what multicore means.

I'm sure there are stories out there that are old hat to some professions but make techies go, "really, I didn't know that"

/jus sayin'
/didn't RTFA

The other half and I went to a computer show a couple weeks ago, and we saw the awesomest thing ever. It was a motherboard that held two processors - one quad core and one dual core. I looked at the other half and told him how I thought it was overkill, and now he's looking into getting one.

Luckily, he's had no luck finding one online for as cheap as they wanted at the show.

/I have a sneaking suspicion he wants it because it'll run SETI better..
//seriously, what the hell would you need six cores for?!

Gridlock: Muta: Naked girls make me blow my load faster.

Oh you don't even have a vision of what the future holds for your testicles.

Scientists look to sperm to power nanobots
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22333518/ (pops)

Soon you'll be squirting millions of nanobots all over every available pornographic surface.

Brings a whole new meaning to "Grey goo apocalypse".

Subby:Multi-core chips make computers run faster.
Running faster implies higher clock speeds. Multiple cores allow you to process multiple threads simultaneously, and simply increase efficiency. Very few applications are multi-threaded, so clock-for-clock performance will be the same between processors.

/Still has a dual-core
//uses it for browsing while encoding video

PirateKing: Brings a whole new meaning to "Grey goo apocalypse".

Not how I expected the world to end. Really didn't see that one coming.

birdistasty: //seriously, what the hell would you need six cores for?!

Six cores will barely give you realtime encoding of DVD to h264 with Handbrake's "Bedlam" quality mode ;p

Still. Right now, a game can easily use two cores. Toss out two for video encoding or having another large, complicated process like that running in the background, and have another two for all the other apps (music, instant messenging, web browser, bittorrent, assorted driver utilities, skype..)

Add in webcam video and some flash in Firefox and a virtual machine running another operating system, and you're quite on your way.

I still have a monocore AMD Turion 64. I sort of felt like kicking myself for not waiting two months until dual cores became the norm.

Not that I'm complaining, it gets the job done.

Monkeypillow: Subby:Multi-core chips make computers run faster.
Running faster implies higher clock speeds. Multiple cores allow you to process multiple threads simultaneously, and simply increase efficiency. Very few applications are multi-threaded, so clock-for-clock performance will be the same between processors.

/Still has a dual-core
//uses it for browsing while encoding video

I find myself doing some serious multitasking occasionally. Just the other night I was ripping 2 DVDs simultaneously and converting a DVD image so I could watch it on my iPhone. It was really straining my 2.4GHz P4. I would love to get Intel's Q6600 Core 2 Quad. It is over 1000% more powerful and only uses 20% more electricity than my P4. That is seriously amazing to me.

Tobin_Lam: Monkeypillow: Subby:Multi-core chips make computers run faster.
Running faster implies higher clock speeds. Multiple cores allow you to process multiple threads simultaneously, and simply increase efficiency. Very few applications are multi-threaded, so clock-for-clock performance will be the same between processors.

/Still has a dual-core
//uses it for browsing while encoding video

I find myself doing some serious multitasking occasionally. Just the other night I was ripping 2 DVDs simultaneously and converting a DVD image so I could watch it on my iPhone. It was really straining my 2.4GHz P4. I would love to get Intel's Q6600 Core 2 Quad. It is over 1000% more powerful and only uses 20% more electricity than my P4. That is seriously amazing to me.

If electricity is important, I bet you could get the C2D to run significantly cleaner the the P4. Is the electricity rating based on total power draw, or the actual power draw including the much superior tech in the C2D which cuts power to unused parts of the chip?

You can also achieve massive improvements by manually messing with voltages and such if that's your thing.

Illidan: Tobin_Lam: Monkeypillow: Subby:Multi-core chips make computers run faster.
Running faster implies higher clock speeds. Multiple cores allow you to process multiple threads simultaneously, and simply increase efficiency. Very few applications are multi-threaded, so clock-for-clock performance will be the same between processors.

/Still has a dual-core
//uses it for browsing while encoding video

I find myself doing some serious multitasking occasionally. Just the other night I was ripping 2 DVDs simultaneously and converting a DVD image so I could watch it on my iPhone. It was really straining my 2.4GHz P4. I would love to get Intel's Q6600 Core 2 Quad. It is over 1000% more powerful and only uses 20% more electricity than my P4. That is seriously amazing to me.

If electricity is important, I bet you could get the C2D to run significantly cleaner the the P4. Is the electricity rating based on total power draw, or the actual power draw including the much superior tech in the C2D which cuts power to unused parts of the chip?

You can also achieve massive improvements by manually messing with voltages and such if that's your thing.

That was TPD. I'm not really concerned with how much electricity it uses, I just think it is amazing how much more they can get out of the same amount of electricity these days.

Monkeypillow:
The only manner in which "faster" means "higher clock speed" is irrelevant. There is no reason to care how many cycles per second an electronic device is throwing around. A P4 running at 4GHz has nearly twice the cycles per second as my 2.2GHz Core 2 Quad. Each of my four cores is considerably faster than the P4 under any reasonable definition. Per clock-cycle, the Core 2 line is currently the fastest desktop line available for most activities. That statement wouldn't even make sense if "Fast" meant "higher clock cycles".

Faster, in general, can mean one of two things:
1) Fastest turn-around time for any particular process. This is the less relevant of the two meanings in most cases, and would be higher on systems which didn't multi-task. It also happens to be improved in current multi-core processors, as it reduces the need for task-switching and other than the Phenoms today's multi-core chips run cool enough that they can run at the same clock speeds as single-core versions of them would be able to.
2) Greatest work done per unit time. This is improved significantly with multi-core designs. Even if none of your applications can take advantage of hardware threading, you do have multiple processes operating at the same time.

Hell, Vista needs a core for itself just to render the freaking GUI...

/OSX isn't much better

Tobin_Lam: Monkeypillow: Subby:Multi-core chips make computers run faster.

/Still has a dual-core
//uses it for browsing while encoding video

... It was really straining my 2.4GHz P4. I would love to get Intel's Q6600 Core 2 Quad. It is over 1000% more powerful and only uses 20% more electricity than my P4. That is seriously amazing to me.


The newer q6600, serial ending in 'SLACR' runs cooler, and uses less juice than the the earlier batch. I have one running at 3.33 Ghz on only a slight boost in voltage. That's a 37% oc with almost no wok at all. I'm one happy geek.

What about the Cell processor, 16 cores? Inform them!