Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mac57" data-source="post: 289289" data-attributes="member: 17052">My guess is that the 933 will be much better. The majority of applications can't yet take advantage of multiple CPUs and so the increase in raw clock rate will make the machine feel a lot faster. This is my problem with quad cores, oct cores and so on. It is great to have more cores, but I am single user on one machine, not a server. True, Photoshop and iTunes and maybe a few others can make use of more than one CPU, but by and large, more CPUs doesn't make most things run faster. We simply need faster CPUs, not more slower ones.When I look at what is on the market today, I am distressed to see that we still seem stuck at 3.0 GHz as a top CPU rate, right where we have been for over three years! I want faster! OK, I'll stop ranting now! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="mac57, post: 289289, member: 17052"] My guess is that the 933 will be much better. The majority of applications can't yet take advantage of multiple CPUs and so the increase in raw clock rate will make the machine feel a lot faster. This is my problem with quad cores, oct cores and so on. It is great to have more cores, but I am single user on one machine, not a server. True, Photoshop and iTunes and maybe a few others can make use of more than one CPU, but by and large, more CPUs doesn't make most things run faster. We simply need faster CPUs, not more slower ones. When I look at what is on the market today, I am distressed to see that we still seem stuck at 3.0 GHz as a top CPU rate, right where we have been for over three years! I want faster! OK, I'll stop ranting now! :-) [/QUOTE]

Verification

Name this item. 🍎