> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in
> news:CS4Xj.7705$0h.831@trnddc02:
>

>> "Mike Rivers" d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>> news:Q7pWj.71$vE.41@trnddc03...
>>

>>> I'm not sure I'll ever upgrade my processor, but I'm enough of a
>>> traditionalist that I'd be inclined to stick with an Intel processor.

>> I'm a huge Intel fan.... would never leave the chipsets.... but
>> they've moved their focus from processor speed to multi-core
>> processing and hyperthreading ram in order to service the
>> multi-tasking 'office.' Dual and quad core processors (at much lower
>> speeds) are all that Intel makes these days.

>
> That's because they simply can't go any faster. A 3.4 gHz chip is running
> at less that 4 light-inches per clock tick. Not much can happen in that
> interval outside the processor. The pipeline efforts are very effective
> but can only be stretched so far.
>
> Most of the world can live with one process running at a very good but not-
> quite-so-fast speed as long as another (or three or seven others) can run
> at the same time at the same speed. That's what multiple cores buys you.