<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_04_0150245</id>
	<title>Intel Details Upcoming Gulftown Six-Core Processor</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265288340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"With the International Solid-State Circuits Conference less than a week away, <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Intel-Details-Upcoming-Mobile-HexaCore-Processors/">Intel has released additional details on its upcoming hexa-core desktop CPU</a>, next gen mobile, and dual-core Westmere processors. Much of the dual-core data was revealed last month when Intel unveiled their <a href="http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Clarkdale-Core-i5-Desktop-Processor-Debuts/">Clarkdale architecture</a>. However, when Intel set its internal goals for what its calling Westmere 6C, the company aimed to boost both core and cache count by 50 percent without increasing the processor's thermal envelope. Westmere 6C (codename Gulftown) is a native six-core chip. Intel has crammed 1.17 billion transistors into a die that's approximately 240mm sq. The new chip carries 12MB up L3 (up from Nehalem's 8MB) and a TDP of 130W at 3.33GHz. In addition, Intel has built in AES encryption instruction decode support as well as a number of improvements to Gulftown's power consumption, especially in idle sleep states."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " With the International Solid-State Circuits Conference less than a week away , Intel has released additional details on its upcoming hexa-core desktop CPU , next gen mobile , and dual-core Westmere processors .
Much of the dual-core data was revealed last month when Intel unveiled their Clarkdale architecture .
However , when Intel set its internal goals for what its calling Westmere 6C , the company aimed to boost both core and cache count by 50 percent without increasing the processor 's thermal envelope .
Westmere 6C ( codename Gulftown ) is a native six-core chip .
Intel has crammed 1.17 billion transistors into a die that 's approximately 240mm sq .
The new chip carries 12MB up L3 ( up from Nehalem 's 8MB ) and a TDP of 130W at 3.33GHz .
In addition , Intel has built in AES encryption instruction decode support as well as a number of improvements to Gulftown 's power consumption , especially in idle sleep states .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "With the International Solid-State Circuits Conference less than a week away, Intel has released additional details on its upcoming hexa-core desktop CPU, next gen mobile, and dual-core Westmere processors.
Much of the dual-core data was revealed last month when Intel unveiled their Clarkdale architecture.
However, when Intel set its internal goals for what its calling Westmere 6C, the company aimed to boost both core and cache count by 50 percent without increasing the processor's thermal envelope.
Westmere 6C (codename Gulftown) is a native six-core chip.
Intel has crammed 1.17 billion transistors into a die that's approximately 240mm sq.
The new chip carries 12MB up L3 (up from Nehalem's 8MB) and a TDP of 130W at 3.33GHz.
In addition, Intel has built in AES encryption instruction decode support as well as a number of improvements to Gulftown's power consumption, especially in idle sleep states.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31024802</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1265310660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a tip for Windows users. Take a look at task manager, and add the "number of threads" column. You'll see that pretty much everything has more than one thread. I'm seeing 12-24 for each IE instance, 16 for Excel, 54 for Outlook, 46 for IDEA, etc. A lot of developers (particularly on slashdot) seem to have a real issue with threading, I think they much be C++ coders, as other more modern languages make multi-threading much easier and more reliable. You still have to be careful, of course, but the benefits can be great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a tip for Windows users .
Take a look at task manager , and add the " number of threads " column .
You 'll see that pretty much everything has more than one thread .
I 'm seeing 12-24 for each IE instance , 16 for Excel , 54 for Outlook , 46 for IDEA , etc .
A lot of developers ( particularly on slashdot ) seem to have a real issue with threading , I think they much be C + + coders , as other more modern languages make multi-threading much easier and more reliable .
You still have to be careful , of course , but the benefits can be great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a tip for Windows users.
Take a look at task manager, and add the "number of threads" column.
You'll see that pretty much everything has more than one thread.
I'm seeing 12-24 for each IE instance, 16 for Excel, 54 for Outlook, 46 for IDEA, etc.
A lot of developers (particularly on slashdot) seem to have a real issue with threading, I think they much be C++ coders, as other more modern languages make multi-threading much easier and more reliable.
You still have to be careful, of course, but the benefits can be great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31029402</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1265291280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and still not bring usage over 50\% more than occasionally</p></div><p> Let me guess, you have a dual core or hyperthreading processor. Guess what, those programs are stressing a single core. You will only see the CPU usage go over 50\% if there are 2 threads running.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and still not bring usage over 50 \ % more than occasionally Let me guess , you have a dual core or hyperthreading processor .
Guess what , those programs are stressing a single core .
You will only see the CPU usage go over 50 \ % if there are 2 threads running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and still not bring usage over 50\% more than occasionally Let me guess, you have a dual core or hyperthreading processor.
Guess what, those programs are stressing a single core.
You will only see the CPU usage go over 50\% if there are 2 threads running.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31025400</id>
	<title>multi cores</title>
	<author>itzdandy</author>
	<datestamp>1265313660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having 6+ cores is a complex issue for the desktop.  In the 'olden' days it way easy to do the math that per Mhz, the less cores the faster ( a pair of 1Ghz chips is slower than a 2Ghz CPU if all all other things are equal)</p><p>But now, each CPU can have a dedicated memory bus.  That means that 2 cores can be FASTER than a single core because 2 cores can have twice the memory bandwidth.  Its not necessarily about clock cycles but bandwidth.</p><p>More cores also can improve the desktop experience.  because flash is currently stuck on a single CPU, your system cant get totally rocked by flash.  If you have a really intense process, you could set the CPU affinity to 5 of the 6 cores to make sure you had one left over.  The process scheduler should try to do this on its own but its not always successfull.</p><p>I run some VM hosts on dual quad cores and processor affinity for virtual machines is very important.  On one box I have CPUs that are 2 dual cores on a single CPU and then 2 sockets.  A VM on CPU1&amp;2 (numerically 1-8, not 0-7) is ideal. A VM on 2&amp;3 is slow and a VM on 4&amp;5 is rediculously slow because you go from a signle chip, to two chips, then to a core on seperate sockets.  This is an extreme case but it is true on the desktop as much as it is anywhere else.</p><p>Any high transaction count server that runs multiple processes or threads will make very good use of 6 cores as these process tend to not jump between cores ( or shouldnt if the programmers are concerned about performance)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having 6 + cores is a complex issue for the desktop .
In the 'olden ' days it way easy to do the math that per Mhz , the less cores the faster ( a pair of 1Ghz chips is slower than a 2Ghz CPU if all all other things are equal ) But now , each CPU can have a dedicated memory bus .
That means that 2 cores can be FASTER than a single core because 2 cores can have twice the memory bandwidth .
Its not necessarily about clock cycles but bandwidth.More cores also can improve the desktop experience .
because flash is currently stuck on a single CPU , your system cant get totally rocked by flash .
If you have a really intense process , you could set the CPU affinity to 5 of the 6 cores to make sure you had one left over .
The process scheduler should try to do this on its own but its not always successfull.I run some VM hosts on dual quad cores and processor affinity for virtual machines is very important .
On one box I have CPUs that are 2 dual cores on a single CPU and then 2 sockets .
A VM on CPU1&amp;2 ( numerically 1-8 , not 0-7 ) is ideal .
A VM on 2&amp;3 is slow and a VM on 4&amp;5 is rediculously slow because you go from a signle chip , to two chips , then to a core on seperate sockets .
This is an extreme case but it is true on the desktop as much as it is anywhere else.Any high transaction count server that runs multiple processes or threads will make very good use of 6 cores as these process tend to not jump between cores ( or shouldnt if the programmers are concerned about performance )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having 6+ cores is a complex issue for the desktop.
In the 'olden' days it way easy to do the math that per Mhz, the less cores the faster ( a pair of 1Ghz chips is slower than a 2Ghz CPU if all all other things are equal)But now, each CPU can have a dedicated memory bus.
That means that 2 cores can be FASTER than a single core because 2 cores can have twice the memory bandwidth.
Its not necessarily about clock cycles but bandwidth.More cores also can improve the desktop experience.
because flash is currently stuck on a single CPU, your system cant get totally rocked by flash.
If you have a really intense process, you could set the CPU affinity to 5 of the 6 cores to make sure you had one left over.
The process scheduler should try to do this on its own but its not always successfull.I run some VM hosts on dual quad cores and processor affinity for virtual machines is very important.
On one box I have CPUs that are 2 dual cores on a single CPU and then 2 sockets.
A VM on CPU1&amp;2 (numerically 1-8, not 0-7) is ideal.
A VM on 2&amp;3 is slow and a VM on 4&amp;5 is rediculously slow because you go from a signle chip, to two chips, then to a core on seperate sockets.
This is an extreme case but it is true on the desktop as much as it is anywhere else.Any high transaction count server that runs multiple processes or threads will make very good use of 6 cores as these process tend to not jump between cores ( or shouldnt if the programmers are concerned about performance)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022126</id>
	<title>on-board AES?</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1265298120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why put AES on-board?  I thought AES was relatively fast as encryption algorithms go.  Plus, it is inevitable that AES will be replaced at some point, so why include something so specific in a chip now?  It will suck to have to implement that in the processor in 20 years when nobody uses AES any longer.  This is the whole point of a processor - include generic instructions that are useful for implementing any algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why put AES on-board ?
I thought AES was relatively fast as encryption algorithms go .
Plus , it is inevitable that AES will be replaced at some point , so why include something so specific in a chip now ?
It will suck to have to implement that in the processor in 20 years when nobody uses AES any longer .
This is the whole point of a processor - include generic instructions that are useful for implementing any algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why put AES on-board?
I thought AES was relatively fast as encryption algorithms go.
Plus, it is inevitable that AES will be replaced at some point, so why include something so specific in a chip now?
It will suck to have to implement that in the processor in 20 years when nobody uses AES any longer.
This is the whole point of a processor - include generic instructions that are useful for implementing any algorithm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021196</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Programs I write for A.I. research can take advantage of any number of cores/cpus/machines, so the more cores I have the faster my research goes.<br>2. Even if programs can't take advantage of multiple cores, you can run multiple programs which take advantage of a single core at the same time.<br>3. Not everyone is a complete idiot like you, the Scientists today can take advantage of thousands of cores, the availability of 6+ core cpus to the individual Scientists is an important piece of progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Programs I write for A.I .
research can take advantage of any number of cores/cpus/machines , so the more cores I have the faster my research goes.2 .
Even if programs ca n't take advantage of multiple cores , you can run multiple programs which take advantage of a single core at the same time.3 .
Not everyone is a complete idiot like you , the Scientists today can take advantage of thousands of cores , the availability of 6 + core cpus to the individual Scientists is an important piece of progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Programs I write for A.I.
research can take advantage of any number of cores/cpus/machines, so the more cores I have the faster my research goes.2.
Even if programs can't take advantage of multiple cores, you can run multiple programs which take advantage of a single core at the same time.3.
Not everyone is a complete idiot like you, the Scientists today can take advantage of thousands of cores, the availability of 6+ core cpus to the individual Scientists is an important piece of progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31026342</id>
	<title>Graphics core</title>
	<author>wirelessbuzzers</author>
	<datestamp>1265275320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a shame they didn't make a mid-level version with no graphics core, a la Core i7 860.  As a crypto/security guy, I'd like to try out PCLMULQDQ, the AES instructions and maybe the IOMMU.  But if I'm going to get a fancy new computer, I might as well put a decent graphics card in it, at which point their on-die graphics card is simply a waste of space, power, money and latency.  And no, I'm not dropping $1k for a 6-core Gulftown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame they did n't make a mid-level version with no graphics core , a la Core i7 860 .
As a crypto/security guy , I 'd like to try out PCLMULQDQ , the AES instructions and maybe the IOMMU .
But if I 'm going to get a fancy new computer , I might as well put a decent graphics card in it , at which point their on-die graphics card is simply a waste of space , power , money and latency .
And no , I 'm not dropping $ 1k for a 6-core Gulftown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame they didn't make a mid-level version with no graphics core, a la Core i7 860.
As a crypto/security guy, I'd like to try out PCLMULQDQ, the AES instructions and maybe the IOMMU.
But if I'm going to get a fancy new computer, I might as well put a decent graphics card in it, at which point their on-die graphics card is simply a waste of space, power, money and latency.
And no, I'm not dropping $1k for a 6-core Gulftown.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022246</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Big Smirk</author>
	<datestamp>1265298660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real time games are a bad example because in general the trouble with threads is you have to sync them up.  The entire program becomes give feedback, gather input, calculate stuff, give feedback.   You generally need to make sure the calculate stuff parts starts and stops with some predictability.</p><p>Some games seem to run their AI in separate threads.  These seems to be a reasonable compromise.  So when the game does 'gather input' it asks the AI subsection where it wants to go at that instant.</p><p>However, its judging by the stability of games like Fallout3, its unclear if either the programmers know how to deal with threads or the underyling OS is ready for intense real time updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real time games are a bad example because in general the trouble with threads is you have to sync them up .
The entire program becomes give feedback , gather input , calculate stuff , give feedback .
You generally need to make sure the calculate stuff parts starts and stops with some predictability.Some games seem to run their AI in separate threads .
These seems to be a reasonable compromise .
So when the game does 'gather input ' it asks the AI subsection where it wants to go at that instant.However , its judging by the stability of games like Fallout3 , its unclear if either the programmers know how to deal with threads or the underyling OS is ready for intense real time updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real time games are a bad example because in general the trouble with threads is you have to sync them up.
The entire program becomes give feedback, gather input, calculate stuff, give feedback.
You generally need to make sure the calculate stuff parts starts and stops with some predictability.Some games seem to run their AI in separate threads.
These seems to be a reasonable compromise.
So when the game does 'gather input' it asks the AI subsection where it wants to go at that instant.However, its judging by the stability of games like Fallout3, its unclear if either the programmers know how to deal with threads or the underyling OS is ready for intense real time updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022212</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1265298480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if an application isn't multithreaded the OS is - so even running a single task a multicore processor will give you a performance boost.</p></div><p>Not quite. A single single-threaded process will not run faster on a multi-core processor (in fact it might run a little slower if the OS doesn't keep it running on the same core for the whole run, as jumping the task between cores uses L1 and L2 cache less efficiently) because the OS will not know how to try and split it up, but running multiple single-threaded tasks (i.e. your five instances of DeVeDe) will most likely benefit significantly (unless other bottlenecks such as I/O bandwidth/latency kick in).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if an application is n't multithreaded the OS is - so even running a single task a multicore processor will give you a performance boost.Not quite .
A single single-threaded process will not run faster on a multi-core processor ( in fact it might run a little slower if the OS does n't keep it running on the same core for the whole run , as jumping the task between cores uses L1 and L2 cache less efficiently ) because the OS will not know how to try and split it up , but running multiple single-threaded tasks ( i.e .
your five instances of DeVeDe ) will most likely benefit significantly ( unless other bottlenecks such as I/O bandwidth/latency kick in ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if an application isn't multithreaded the OS is - so even running a single task a multicore processor will give you a performance boost.Not quite.
A single single-threaded process will not run faster on a multi-core processor (in fact it might run a little slower if the OS doesn't keep it running on the same core for the whole run, as jumping the task between cores uses L1 and L2 cache less efficiently) because the OS will not know how to try and split it up, but running multiple single-threaded tasks (i.e.
your five instances of DeVeDe) will most likely benefit significantly (unless other bottlenecks such as I/O bandwidth/latency kick in).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021358</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265293860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you left for work, would it have really made any difference to you if it took five times as long?</p><p>Thought it probably wouldn't, as you could have been hard-disk bound quite easily reading five large files while writing five other large files. The seeking alone would be nasty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you left for work , would it have really made any difference to you if it took five times as long ? Thought it probably would n't , as you could have been hard-disk bound quite easily reading five large files while writing five other large files .
The seeking alone would be nasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you left for work, would it have really made any difference to you if it took five times as long?Thought it probably wouldn't, as you could have been hard-disk bound quite easily reading five large files while writing five other large files.
The seeking alone would be nasty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023224</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1265303340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most of the things that you do on a computer will run happily on a 1GHz CPU and still not bring usage over 50\% more than occasionally</i></p><p>Speak for yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the things that you do on a computer will run happily on a 1GHz CPU and still not bring usage over 50 \ % more than occasionallySpeak for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the things that you do on a computer will run happily on a 1GHz CPU and still not bring usage over 50\% more than occasionallySpeak for yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021272</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>pointbeing</author>
	<datestamp>1265293260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can most programmes really be written to take advantage of so many cores?</p></div><p>Yup.</p><p>Got a Core i7-920 running at 3.2GHz at home - OS is 64-bit Kubuntu 9.10.</p><p>Yesterday I had five two-hour videos I wanted to render to DVD5 format - four were<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avi and one was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4.</p><p>Launched five instances of DeVeDe to render the video and create the DVD file structure and did all five at the same time - then left for work.  Took an hour and twelve minutes and the machine didn't melt, explode or let any of the magic smoke out of the box.</p><p>Even if an application isn't multithreaded the OS is - so even running a single task a multicore processor will give you a performance boost.</p><p>A Core i7 has four cores that'll run two threads each - presents as eight processor cores to the OS.  I have no problem using them all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can most programmes really be written to take advantage of so many cores ? Yup.Got a Core i7-920 running at 3.2GHz at home - OS is 64-bit Kubuntu 9.10.Yesterday I had five two-hour videos I wanted to render to DVD5 format - four were .avi and one was .mp4.Launched five instances of DeVeDe to render the video and create the DVD file structure and did all five at the same time - then left for work .
Took an hour and twelve minutes and the machine did n't melt , explode or let any of the magic smoke out of the box.Even if an application is n't multithreaded the OS is - so even running a single task a multicore processor will give you a performance boost.A Core i7 has four cores that 'll run two threads each - presents as eight processor cores to the OS .
I have no problem using them all ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can most programmes really be written to take advantage of so many cores?Yup.Got a Core i7-920 running at 3.2GHz at home - OS is 64-bit Kubuntu 9.10.Yesterday I had five two-hour videos I wanted to render to DVD5 format - four were .avi and one was .mp4.Launched five instances of DeVeDe to render the video and create the DVD file structure and did all five at the same time - then left for work.
Took an hour and twelve minutes and the machine didn't melt, explode or let any of the magic smoke out of the box.Even if an application isn't multithreaded the OS is - so even running a single task a multicore processor will give you a performance boost.A Core i7 has four cores that'll run two threads each - presents as eight processor cores to the OS.
I have no problem using them all ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021466</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more like the difference between a threesome with two hot babes and an orgy of milfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like the difference between a threesome with two hot babes and an orgy of milfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like the difference between a threesome with two hot babes and an orgy of milfs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021432</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>stilldead</author>
	<datestamp>1265294460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as virtualization is on your mind and not a laptop this makes beautiful sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as virtualization is on your mind and not a laptop this makes beautiful sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as virtualization is on your mind and not a laptop this makes beautiful sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31032584</id>
	<title>castle</title>
	<author>johan85</author>
	<datestamp>1265365380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://watchcastleonline.biz/" title="watchcastleonline.biz" rel="nofollow">watch castle</a> [watchcastleonline.biz]</htmltext>
<tokenext>watch castle [ watchcastleonline.biz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>watch castle [watchcastleonline.biz]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1265293440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most programs can't be written to take full advantage of even one core.  Most of the things that you do on a computer will run happily on a 1GHz CPU and still not bring usage over 50\% more than occasionally.  Most of the things that will tax a modern CPU can be made parallel, so will scale quite well to a number of cores.  Even if your processor intensive task isn't using multiple cores, you still benefit a bit from being able to move everything else onto another core.  With the recent Intel chips you also have 'Turbo Boost' (horrible name) which underclocks some cores while overclocking others, giving one core a speed boost for that CPU-eating single-threaded app while keeping the power usage and heat generation output.  To prevent hotspots on the die, you can move the process around between the cores, giving each a boost for a little while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most programs ca n't be written to take full advantage of even one core .
Most of the things that you do on a computer will run happily on a 1GHz CPU and still not bring usage over 50 \ % more than occasionally .
Most of the things that will tax a modern CPU can be made parallel , so will scale quite well to a number of cores .
Even if your processor intensive task is n't using multiple cores , you still benefit a bit from being able to move everything else onto another core .
With the recent Intel chips you also have 'Turbo Boost ' ( horrible name ) which underclocks some cores while overclocking others , giving one core a speed boost for that CPU-eating single-threaded app while keeping the power usage and heat generation output .
To prevent hotspots on the die , you can move the process around between the cores , giving each a boost for a little while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most programs can't be written to take full advantage of even one core.
Most of the things that you do on a computer will run happily on a 1GHz CPU and still not bring usage over 50\% more than occasionally.
Most of the things that will tax a modern CPU can be made parallel, so will scale quite well to a number of cores.
Even if your processor intensive task isn't using multiple cores, you still benefit a bit from being able to move everything else onto another core.
With the recent Intel chips you also have 'Turbo Boost' (horrible name) which underclocks some cores while overclocking others, giving one core a speed boost for that CPU-eating single-threaded app while keeping the power usage and heat generation output.
To prevent hotspots on the die, you can move the process around between the cores, giving each a boost for a little while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023698</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265305620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, the advantage of multi-core is not that you can make tasks parallel, but that you can run non-parallel tasks in parallel.</p><p>Yesterday I had to do some password-cracking. My fastest system was my quad-core desktop. On a single-core system, the cracking software would have made my desktop unusable. But since this was quad core, I could fire the process off and continue to use my system as usual, with no perceptible slow-down on FireFox, NetBeans, or any other app I was working with at that time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , the advantage of multi-core is not that you can make tasks parallel , but that you can run non-parallel tasks in parallel.Yesterday I had to do some password-cracking .
My fastest system was my quad-core desktop .
On a single-core system , the cracking software would have made my desktop unusable .
But since this was quad core , I could fire the process off and continue to use my system as usual , with no perceptible slow-down on FireFox , NetBeans , or any other app I was working with at that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, the advantage of multi-core is not that you can make tasks parallel, but that you can run non-parallel tasks in parallel.Yesterday I had to do some password-cracking.
My fastest system was my quad-core desktop.
On a single-core system, the cracking software would have made my desktop unusable.
But since this was quad core, I could fire the process off and continue to use my system as usual, with no perceptible slow-down on FireFox, NetBeans, or any other app I was working with at that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</id>
	<title>Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can most programmes really be written to take advantage of so many cores?  I am not sure I want to have a 6-core processor, of which 5 spend most of the time idling as I am only running a single-core-aware programme.  OK, one more core can be used by the OS to make everything snappy, but the question stands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can most programmes really be written to take advantage of so many cores ?
I am not sure I want to have a 6-core processor , of which 5 spend most of the time idling as I am only running a single-core-aware programme .
OK , one more core can be used by the OS to make everything snappy , but the question stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can most programmes really be written to take advantage of so many cores?
I am not sure I want to have a 6-core processor, of which 5 spend most of the time idling as I am only running a single-core-aware programme.
OK, one more core can be used by the OS to make everything snappy, but the question stands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021180</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cores are like girls in 'hot sluts gone wild' scenes - after a certain point you might hardly notice if there's even more of them, but you'd never say "no" to an increase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cores are like girls in 'hot sluts gone wild ' scenes - after a certain point you might hardly notice if there 's even more of them , but you 'd never say " no " to an increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cores are like girls in 'hot sluts gone wild' scenes - after a certain point you might hardly notice if there's even more of them, but you'd never say "no" to an increase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021380</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1265294100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes&amp;No, it requires a higher level of skill and understanding to program in parallel.  It is even harder to use them efficiently, IO conflicts for instance will make any multi-threaded program run much slower.  The most glaring example, Microsoft has yet to solve, simply try to copy two large files separately on a multi-core and then copy the same files together the files copied in series will take much less time because the seeks have been reduced.  Some programs will see no benefit Hello World for example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes&amp;No , it requires a higher level of skill and understanding to program in parallel .
It is even harder to use them efficiently , IO conflicts for instance will make any multi-threaded program run much slower .
The most glaring example , Microsoft has yet to solve , simply try to copy two large files separately on a multi-core and then copy the same files together the files copied in series will take much less time because the seeks have been reduced .
Some programs will see no benefit Hello World for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes&amp;No, it requires a higher level of skill and understanding to program in parallel.
It is even harder to use them efficiently, IO conflicts for instance will make any multi-threaded program run much slower.
The most glaring example, Microsoft has yet to solve, simply try to copy two large files separately on a multi-core and then copy the same files together the files copied in series will take much less time because the seeks have been reduced.
Some programs will see no benefit Hello World for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31026276</id>
	<title>How do I get one of these in my phone!</title>
	<author>richardkelleher</author>
	<datestamp>1265275080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or a game boy or something like that.  Of course you would have to wear asbestos gloves to play with the thing...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a game boy or something like that .
Of course you would have to wear asbestos gloves to play with the thing... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a game boy or something like that.
Of course you would have to wear asbestos gloves to play with the thing... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022220</id>
	<title>Codenamed codename?</title>
	<author>CoffeeDregs</author>
	<datestamp>1265298540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Westmere 6C (codename Gulftown)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Really?  I fricking hate codenamed codenames...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Westmere 6C ( codename Gulftown )     Really ?
I fricking hate codenamed codenames.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Westmere 6C (codename Gulftown)
    Really?
I fricking hate codenamed codenames...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022796</id>
	<title>Re:on-board AES?</title>
	<author>Galactic Dominator</author>
	<datestamp>1265301360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah AES is relatively fast with the keyword being relatively.  Those of us who like to use disk encryption applaud this move since it would great reduce the need for seperate and expensive crypto hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah AES is relatively fast with the keyword being relatively .
Those of us who like to use disk encryption applaud this move since it would great reduce the need for seperate and expensive crypto hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah AES is relatively fast with the keyword being relatively.
Those of us who like to use disk encryption applaud this move since it would great reduce the need for seperate and expensive crypto hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021596</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most programs are very much not written to take advantage of multi-cores. Even advanced
3D games which might find the extra compute power useful, often can't deal with extra
cores. E.g. I had to set the affinity of Borderlands to 1 CPU only to stop it crashing.
Multithreaded programming is slowly getting easier as libraries to help it, become available.
Java is particularly easy for this, have a look at java.util.concurrent, with i've just started
using on the serverside. But most programs are miles behind in the move to being
able to work with multiprocessors. Right now 6 cores will have very little to offer the
desktop, on the server side however, i'm sure the extra core will have use, but only
if the server is particularly loaded with transactions, something with rarely happens.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Multithreaded\%20Programming/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Multithreaded Programming</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most programs are very much not written to take advantage of multi-cores .
Even advanced 3D games which might find the extra compute power useful , often ca n't deal with extra cores .
E.g. I had to set the affinity of Borderlands to 1 CPU only to stop it crashing .
Multithreaded programming is slowly getting easier as libraries to help it , become available .
Java is particularly easy for this , have a look at java.util.concurrent , with i 've just started using on the serverside .
But most programs are miles behind in the move to being able to work with multiprocessors .
Right now 6 cores will have very little to offer the desktop , on the server side however , i 'm sure the extra core will have use , but only if the server is particularly loaded with transactions , something with rarely happens .
--- Multithreaded Programming [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most programs are very much not written to take advantage of multi-cores.
Even advanced
3D games which might find the extra compute power useful, often can't deal with extra
cores.
E.g. I had to set the affinity of Borderlands to 1 CPU only to stop it crashing.
Multithreaded programming is slowly getting easier as libraries to help it, become available.
Java is particularly easy for this, have a look at java.util.concurrent, with i've just started
using on the serverside.
But most programs are miles behind in the move to being
able to work with multiprocessors.
Right now 6 cores will have very little to offer the
desktop, on the server side however, i'm sure the extra core will have use, but only
if the server is particularly loaded with transactions, something with rarely happens.
---

Multithreaded Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021296</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1265293380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I'd prefer two strong oxen. Wait, what were we talking about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I 'd prefer two strong oxen .
Wait , what were we talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I'd prefer two strong oxen.
Wait, what were we talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022904</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265301900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He could have just downloaded the videos in the format of his choice, and did no processing. I don't have a bluray drive or fast cpu, but I have all the 1080p content I want. All my money goes to hard disks and not cpu upgrades. Desktop processing has been effectively dead for 3 years now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He could have just downloaded the videos in the format of his choice , and did no processing .
I do n't have a bluray drive or fast cpu , but I have all the 1080p content I want .
All my money goes to hard disks and not cpu upgrades .
Desktop processing has been effectively dead for 3 years now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He could have just downloaded the videos in the format of his choice, and did no processing.
I don't have a bluray drive or fast cpu, but I have all the 1080p content I want.
All my money goes to hard disks and not cpu upgrades.
Desktop processing has been effectively dead for 3 years now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31026100</id>
	<title>No Hexa Core details ?</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1265274360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the article. Where were the Hexa core details ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article .
Where were the Hexa core details ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article.
Where were the Hexa core details ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31024134</id>
	<title>AMD responds...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265307780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with an AMD X3 Core 2 Duo or AMD X3X2...</p><p>Though I wonder why we are going to 6 rather than 8. Core 2 Quad Duo's? Head 'esplodes....</p><p>I just can't wait till the Quad Quads... or something spiffy, like Quad Squared. 16 is probably a ways off from the consumer market anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with an AMD X3 Core 2 Duo or AMD X3X2...Though I wonder why we are going to 6 rather than 8 .
Core 2 Quad Duo 's ?
Head 'esplodes....I just ca n't wait till the Quad Quads... or something spiffy , like Quad Squared .
16 is probably a ways off from the consumer market anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with an AMD X3 Core 2 Duo or AMD X3X2...Though I wonder why we are going to 6 rather than 8.
Core 2 Quad Duo's?
Head 'esplodes....I just can't wait till the Quad Quads... or something spiffy, like Quad Squared.
16 is probably a ways off from the consumer market anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023418</id>
	<title>Who cares...</title>
	<author>the linux geek</author>
	<datestamp>1265304240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This comes the same month as the release of 16-core processors by IBM and Oracle, and a 12-core from AMD. This isn't that impressive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This comes the same month as the release of 16-core processors by IBM and Oracle , and a 12-core from AMD .
This is n't that impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comes the same month as the release of 16-core processors by IBM and Oracle, and a 12-core from AMD.
This isn't that impressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021206</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265292780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When was the last time your computer was only running a single thread/process? (apart from the BIOS initialisation I guess)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time your computer was only running a single thread/process ?
( apart from the BIOS initialisation I guess )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time your computer was only running a single thread/process?
(apart from the BIOS initialisation I guess)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021388</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only use concurrency when it makes sense. On my system, all audio runs through PulseAudio, which runs in its own process. Input (among other things) is handled by X.org, also running its own process. The scheduler can decide which process runs on which CPU and tries to use all available CPUs (or cores) in the most efficient way. So the operating system is already using concurrent processes itself.</p><p>Mobile processors benefit from a low load by entering various idle states which use less power then the active state, which in turn benefits the battery such that it lasts longer on the same charge.</p><p>Thus the point is not to try to use all available cores and every available CPU cycle, but rather to use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/least/ cycles possible for any given task. Otherwise there would be no point in adding more cores, because the programs would simply burn more cycles. Although operating systems generally do seem to grow to require more processing power, computers typically run only one operating system at a time. Having multiple cores to work with is meant to benefit the end user by allowing more processes to run simultaneously, such as encoding/decoding an audio and video stream at the same time. Or multiple A/V streams with different camera angles, the possibilities are for the users to explore and there will be plenty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only use concurrency when it makes sense .
On my system , all audio runs through PulseAudio , which runs in its own process .
Input ( among other things ) is handled by X.org , also running its own process .
The scheduler can decide which process runs on which CPU and tries to use all available CPUs ( or cores ) in the most efficient way .
So the operating system is already using concurrent processes itself.Mobile processors benefit from a low load by entering various idle states which use less power then the active state , which in turn benefits the battery such that it lasts longer on the same charge.Thus the point is not to try to use all available cores and every available CPU cycle , but rather to use the /least/ cycles possible for any given task .
Otherwise there would be no point in adding more cores , because the programs would simply burn more cycles .
Although operating systems generally do seem to grow to require more processing power , computers typically run only one operating system at a time .
Having multiple cores to work with is meant to benefit the end user by allowing more processes to run simultaneously , such as encoding/decoding an audio and video stream at the same time .
Or multiple A/V streams with different camera angles , the possibilities are for the users to explore and there will be plenty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only use concurrency when it makes sense.
On my system, all audio runs through PulseAudio, which runs in its own process.
Input (among other things) is handled by X.org, also running its own process.
The scheduler can decide which process runs on which CPU and tries to use all available CPUs (or cores) in the most efficient way.
So the operating system is already using concurrent processes itself.Mobile processors benefit from a low load by entering various idle states which use less power then the active state, which in turn benefits the battery such that it lasts longer on the same charge.Thus the point is not to try to use all available cores and every available CPU cycle, but rather to use the /least/ cycles possible for any given task.
Otherwise there would be no point in adding more cores, because the programs would simply burn more cycles.
Although operating systems generally do seem to grow to require more processing power, computers typically run only one operating system at a time.
Having multiple cores to work with is meant to benefit the end user by allowing more processes to run simultaneously, such as encoding/decoding an audio and video stream at the same time.
Or multiple A/V streams with different camera angles, the possibilities are for the users to explore and there will be plenty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021446</id>
	<title>Re:Are most programmes multi-processor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265294580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With most browsers becoming multithreaded or multi process, even casual users will potentially gain from this.</p><p>Not to mention your machine may have a truckload of background processes going on.</p><p>Games etc will definitely benefit from any extra cores you throw at them. Since a fine grained threading library like OpenMP will grab all available threads when sharing out work. Also the Xbox 360 has 3 cores so a lot of games will use at least 3 threads as a minimum (since most games are multiplatform now).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With most browsers becoming multithreaded or multi process , even casual users will potentially gain from this.Not to mention your machine may have a truckload of background processes going on.Games etc will definitely benefit from any extra cores you throw at them .
Since a fine grained threading library like OpenMP will grab all available threads when sharing out work .
Also the Xbox 360 has 3 cores so a lot of games will use at least 3 threads as a minimum ( since most games are multiplatform now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With most browsers becoming multithreaded or multi process, even casual users will potentially gain from this.Not to mention your machine may have a truckload of background processes going on.Games etc will definitely benefit from any extra cores you throw at them.
Since a fine grained threading library like OpenMP will grab all available threads when sharing out work.
Also the Xbox 360 has 3 cores so a lot of games will use at least 3 threads as a minimum (since most games are multiplatform now).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31024802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31029402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_0150245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_0150245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_0150245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_0150245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31026100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_0150245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31029402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31023224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31024802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31022246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31021432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_0150245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_0150245.31024134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
