
Intel details 14 dual-core Ivy Bridge processors ahead of Computex - Garbage
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/31/intel-dual-core-ivy-bridge/
======
ilaksh
Why do I care about dual-core? I want a reasonably priced six core i7.. or 12
cores would be better.

~~~
joenathan
Paralleling is only going to net so much performance increases, you can't
increase cores exponentially and expect performance wins. Better efficiency in
single threaded performance will have the most effect for most people.

I think much of the performance increases we will see in the near future will
come from better coding, for example Windows 8 is supposed to run faster on
older hardware compared to Windows 7(also consider the simplicity of the ui of
Windows phone and the resulting snappiness and speed on older hardware),
combined with the influx of SSDs we may have reached or are nearing the
plateau of performance that the average person would ever care for.

~~~
duaneb
Most users won't get any effect at all unless they're playing top-end video
games.

Anyway, I thought by now we would have 16-core processors.... I don't
understand why the "default" one is still two cores.

~~~
sambeau
_"Most users won't get any effect at all unless they're playing top-end video
games."_

I have 14 browser tabs open.

Safari is currently using 17 threads. Webprocess is using 10, Pluginprocess is
using 22.

I shudder to think what those numbers would be if I wasn't running AdBlock.

I believe most users would see the effect of more cores.

~~~
duaneb
Actually, I was talking about the single-threaded performance - I agree
wholeheartedly that more cores would be a better experience.

------
chillax
As far as I can every cpu is labeled mobile or ultra mobile except for one
(which also has has a significantly lower TDP compared to the quad cores).

------
miahi
I see 5 quad core and 9 dual core CPUs in the list.

~~~
bbromhead
Yup... no 14 core chips here

