Computing

by Matt on Apr.09, 2008, under Computers, Insanity, Rants & Raves, School

It looks as if we’re actually being charged $500 to take our school laptops with us (after paying $1,200 for the “Technology Fee,”) which has me scouting out prices: can $500 buy something better than this?

In the process, I came across this: a tri-core computer.

If you’re confused…. Me too!

5 comments for this entry:

andrew
April 9th, 2008 on 4:53 pm
Due to the slow adoption rate of quad-core, as well as the lack of multi-threaded apps that take advantage of such processors, AMD is banking on the fact that a tri-core processor will offer desktop consumers an attractive middle-of-the-road option.

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/09/amd-confirms-tr.html

Weird.
Matt
April 10th, 2008 on 11:47 am
If there’s a “lack of multi-threaded apps,” why don’t they stick to dual-core?

I really can’t imagine that there is anyone out there thinking that two cores is insufficient, but also steadfastly opposed to buying a quad-core.

Introducing a tri-core processor doesn’t seem to do anything but make people laugh?
Mr. T
April 10th, 2008 on 6:25 pm
People don’t understand this multi-core stuff. They just assume that two cores is better than one and three is better than two. They don’t understand that the software is not yet up with the hardware for many applications and that they are paying for an illusion.
Matt
April 10th, 2008 on 7:14 pm
Although “power users” have many programs open at once, potentially making it worthwhile. Although really, it’s rare for more than 1 to be CPU-intensive. (RAM-intensive, on the other hand…)

Something about Symmetric Multi-Processor machines suggests that three processors is… just weird.
Matt
July 16th, 2008 on 11:44 pm
In case anyone comes across this — apparently, we are NOT charged $500 to take our notebooks home.