well software has to catch up with it. Yea u can have 64 cores someday but wat is the point. Software has to be written to take advantage off all the cores, or to run on separate cores n writing programs for many cores takes a long time.
2007-06-05 07:53:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jake 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Okay first off, I am going to assume that you mean 64 cores, and not 64 bit as a few people have seemed to think. As for when, not for a good long while. From the preliminary roadmaps I have seen, we will barely be at 8 cores by 2011, so I wouldn't expect 64 cores for several years.
2007-06-05 17:13:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by mysticman44 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Right now, XP and Vista can make use of multiple cores, but 99% of applications don't. Worse, applications have to be reprogrammed to use multiple cores. These kind of rewrites in many cases are not possible (the tasks must be parallelizable) and they often lead to more bugs being developed, because there's no guarantee that testing will expose a bug (because execution of the program on multiple cores will never be the same).
In 2005, dual core makes the most sense -- Windows can use one, and your apps can use the other. Quad core is out, but I can't think of 1 program that would actually use the other two cores. Until then, 64 core is a dumb idea that won't improve performance.
2007-06-05 15:22:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
AMD has had 64 bit dual core processors around for a few years. The Athelon 64 X2 is available in a number of speeds and configurations.
The real question is a true 64 bit OS and applications that can use the dual core configuration. Other than Linux/Unix I am not sure if there is any OS that truely exploites the 64 bit and dual core options.
2007-06-05 14:57:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Wizard Of OS 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
need specific info. 64bit has been out for a long time but answer one is good!
2007-06-05 15:00:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by megamix1972 3
·
1⤊
1⤋