Arkam city was broken on release too so you'd think they'd have learnt their lesson.
1 Like
I think I could for a simple work/school machine. Obviously for most games no. I also still use an iPod 4 as my "smart" device and it has a single core.
It would depend entirely on a use case scenario - if you were using programs that were optimised for single core then having more cores would be a waste. But if you were gaming, you would want a few cores at least. Then again if you were working with enterprise computing and managing multiple VM's, Hypervisors and/or containers then you would need every core you could get.
Hell no! All jokes aside, that's my home server... But no, I wouldn't use a single core machine, I am a tab whore and I normally have about 6 different programs open at any one time, even on my work laptop.
1 Core is better that No cores...
I will get my coat.
1 Like
You do that don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Lol
I have a Dell Precision 470 with dual single core 3.0Ghz Xeons but the VRM addon card is really finicky and only works half the time. When it does boot up the dual processors are only good for number crunching anyway. The machine itself is pretty nice though.
1 Like
I was using a Sempron 140 machine just a few weeks ago. I only used it for browsing and media consumption, so it wasn't bad, but the CPU usage was pegged at 100%. I replaced the Sempy with a dual core Phenom, but I plan on overclocking the Sempy someday(hopefully unlock too, I wasn't able to on my board).
My home server (basically a slow NAS) is a single core P4, and that's fine in Debian Linux. Just quietly buzzes away doing it's business. But a single core PC as a Windows workstation? I'll pass.
I quite enjoy having a spare core or three for situations where a single process has lost it's mind.
What do you do with them then?
I had a quad cpu mac donkeys ago (manufacturer called daystar, mac clone during the horrible PowerPC era)
Cool as hell but only VERY SPECIFIC apps even used it to its full potential
I remember having a dual processor celeron (i kid you not!) abit board.. think that one was for pentium 3's and I was running windows NT workstation on it
it was this bad boy
www.anandtech.com/show/343
good times :D
2 Likes
Data analysis, RSA brute force testing, system and network scanning/monitoring, web hosting, databases, storage managment. You get the idea. Everything that makes the internet, the vast matrix that it is.
I have a hex-core, 12 thread beast, thank you very much. Not some quad core peasant machine! GAH, the very though of the plebs puts a soldering taste in my mouth! /s
1 Like
Got a slightly used dual core AMD Athlon 64 x2 3800+ back in 2006 had haven't looked back. Used it as my main computer even through most of college until 2013 and still use as NAS now. The RAM capacity at 4GB is the largest bottleneck when running modern programs.
I would totally use a single core machine depending on its use case. I think it would allow for great cheap servers and possibly decent emulation. Besides that though, I'm at a loss with what I do. I could probably make way with a Skylake i3, but I love the confidence of knowing that when I do virtualization my VM has the power of an i7 4790k whilst Linux still has the resources of an i3 :).. I wouldn't trade my 5820k for anything considering how high it OCs.. Maybe a 5960X lol. More cores do great hep what I'm doing but at the same time I could do what I do with fewer. Actually, I've always the G3258 to be incredibly interesting and a while back I was actually planning to get one over my 12 threaded beast (yes I know it's a dual core). It ultimately depends on the workload. A G3258 with a core disabled overclocked to 17ghz is pointless if I'm dealing with a highly threaded workload.
I wouldn't use a single core machine as my daily drive. I do in fact have an old laptop with Pentium 740, that can do most of the stuff, when I'm traveling. I did try also installing Linux onto it, but ran into problems.
I think it may work for the regular folks running office and checking emails and youtube. But for those of us swearing to get the absolute MOST out of our investment by learning new ways to use it so that we don't feel cheated out of its cost. Id say no. Albeton LIVE would laugh at me before taking away my PC license as multicore render becomes ...well, useless.
A single/dual core processor that was designed to be heavily overclocked (reliably) to 6GHz or more and easily dissipate the heat would be useful in a couple of situations. Programs like AutoCAD can be annoying in this respect as drawings with over 20000 2D elements can easily load up a single core but leaves the rest practically idle, which encourages you to waste time online.
I still have a AMD Fx-57 rig.
I used to use it for Folding at Home.
I only had space for one rig then replaced that with a Ivy Bridge setup.
Frequency of mosfets is proportional to voltage - which increases power draw exponentially, so adding more cores is a much easier way of increasing performance (especially with reductions in transistor size) without breaking the laws of physics.
For a single core CPU go be worth my time it would have to have a crazy frequency, which would require significant cooling, either increasing the noise of my PC or requiring my an expensive cooling setup. TLDR; no, A single core CPU is not very practical for everyday use