30-40% is just a conservative estimate, i wouldnt be surprised if it was 50-70% faster when encoding/decoding stuff
![]()
30-40% is just a conservative estimate, i wouldnt be surprised if it was 50-70% faster when encoding/decoding stuff
![]()
even if its 85% faster, i would not consider it multicore efficient.Originally Posted by jordinho
98% increase is what i would call effcient, but i think thats close to impossible on how the current intel quadcores are made
still im happy i bought the Q6600 even tho i barely use more than 1 core..
OT mods
errrrr sure sure lol![]()
Originally Posted by jordinho
![]()

oh..i thought C2D is more cheaper than C2Q..Originally Posted by EarlZ
![]()
Uhmmm... Is'nt that a bit of OVERKILL?Originally Posted by digitalsuperman
I thought I Celeron D or P4 in LGA775 would more than suffice for such tasks.
That's about right.Originally Posted by EarlZ
But, IIRC it wa the Prescott and EE versions of the P4, which ran very hot. The earlier Northwoods were much more cooler than the two later types. I actually had a 2.8 Prescott and on idle it was like 55 C.![]()
Originally Posted by digitalsuperman
NP
how about the c2d life span...... when ni cya probably ma obsolete? basin after next 2 years ma obsolete na ang c2d and Quad
T_T im tihik man gud....
usa ra ako kasulti ani;
best example for this one is: "two brains are better than one"
Not necessarily.Originally Posted by dartzed
But im sure two brains are more than one.
Similar Threads |
|