You can probably play more than CS 1.6 XD probably fallout 3 or something.
Might have played, but didn't feel like laying it again.
My getto NAS is a single core machine. I will prolly die before it will. Heath report at 11
1 Like
Back in 2004 I had a socket 478 Pentium4 3.4ghz Extreme Edition with 2gb ram and a ATI Radeon 9800XT 256mb and 80 or 120gb hard drive cant remember. Oh and a 19" viewsonic CRT that took up my whole desk. That was great machine, It was my main rig up till 2008 when I got my q6600 and 8800gts oc. I continued to use it up till 2010 for my AutoCAD 2005 and a few other design programs. I would still have it today but I sold it to a person Im no longer friends with :/ so cant get it back. Far as running one or two programs my p4ee was just as fast as my q6600 with 4gb ram and 8800gts.
For a single core cpu to keep up at all today it would have to be 5+ghz and even then it would still struggle with multi-tasking and threaded software. Its said quad cores have been around at least 8 years now and a lot of software still doesnt utilize them very well. Im hoping to get at least 4-5 years out of my i7 4790k before I upgrade again.
The transmission computer and engine management computer in my honda are both single core. So yes I would and do.
I would gladly use a single core machine as my daily driver if it was clocked at 50GHz. Sadly it would go thermonuclear and vaporize everything.
Sure why not...As long as it had fast enough single thread performance. And for most things it is enough...Multi cores at this point mostly only helps us run different things in parallel, rather than speeding up single applications. Developers still do not have enough tools to do parallel programming in an efficient and straightforward way.
No, even dual core machines (like the one I am writing this on) annoy me.
Maybe Dual Core HT machines would be fine but I agree for most cases, a single core is not enough. I mean even with a really strong single core it seems like it'd limit you a lot. I mean even if you were running XP or Lubuntu, it would still be pretty slow in relation to even dual core CPUs.
I remember back when the linux kernel got better multi-core support. Windows 95 was the thing, I think W98 just had launched. Some people on IRC asked why you would ever use linux. I remember one answer was "play mp3s on the other CPU". Pretty much only linux/unix people had multi core machines back then.
As soon as i could afford it, I built a dual Slot-1 machine. A Tekram motherboard was the heart of that machine. Died the bad caps death years later. sniff Of course I wanted the Tyan Tiger board, but it was soo far out of my price range that it wasn't even funny.
Would have a hard time using a single core machine as a desktop/laptop. Possible, yes. But why would I when i have a choice?
Look guys, it's the 90s.
We are awaiting Blizzard to announce StarCraft, Clinton is running for the White House and the CPUs have only 1 core...
1 Like
Of course... in my routers and some vps's
Surprised this came back :P
A while later and I am still using single cores. My AROS machine is a 2.2 GHZ celeron, still using my HP and netbook, they all do fine :D
well I use OBS with downscaling, adobe audition and whatever game simultaneously and daily so I'd rather have my computer taken away than be forced to use a single core
(6-core CPUs at 100 euros is the only reason I picked AMD for my build. I need the cores.)
1 Like
Ehhhh dual core minimum. Sometimes when I'm in a man camp on a job site I want to watch movies while doing soemthing else. But that Celeron processor was epic for its time I must say.
Try run a VM with 1 core....They work fine
A VM isn't a good comparison to the actual hardware I don't know why people keep doing that.
Is a Vm worse or better than bare metal ?
I can't describe how annoying it is when I go to the local LUG with a pentium 4 and some dumbass walks up with a 5960X and says "DURR I RUN 1 CORE IN VM IT SAME" because its not.
My point is that a single core machine like a pentium 4 that has HT, high clock rates, and an 800 MHZ FSB (compared to the 533 and 400/333 mhz FSB's) is JUST FINE for a lot of people. I played Skyrim on a pentium 4. 45 FPS. Just fine. No one wants to do the sorta thing I do. Its stupid to learn.