Is there any processor architecture that never get absolute if no then why ?
148077
Obsolete, I assume.  Anyway, is a hammer obsolete?  Yes, a nail gun works better, but if you are twenty miles from the closest electric plug or air compressor, and you have to only drive one nail, the hammer can't be beat.\n\nThe old processors of yesterday, like the 6502 or 8086 are still around, just not running computers with today's bloated software.  The processors aren't obsolete - your computing requirements are expanding.\n\nThus, if your demands for technology tomorrow are not yet defined, how can one assume that today's processors will handle it?\n\nIn other words, if you only want to run WordPerfect on a Windows 3.1 machine, a 80386 chip is not obsolete, nor will it be 10 years from now if still that's all you want to do.
209668
its a hardware , so no upgrade for motherboards or cpu
496970
If ATI doesn't have them then it doesn't exist. Thats why Betas are betas, not really useful for everyone.
489553
it is a feature of the x86 series of the processors that allows upto 64GB of physical memory compatible to the 32bit processor based computers. provided there is a compatible operating system support. it is supported by most of the intel and AMD processors, there is an assinment of a CPU-ID flag for the purpose of the identification of the processors supporting the feature.
958225
duo-core processors are 2 different processors but are linked. the reason they have this is it makes processing faster. if you have one single processor..it does all the work, it has to process that much more stuff. the duo-core utilizes 2 seperate processors to make the computer run faster, only one of the processors will be doing the job (and have to process less). if you have a duo 1.83...it has the equivalent of a 2.66 ghz processor. but when you choose to do something, it only uses the one needed (1.83) and it doesn't have to process as much info as a normal 2.66. and yes if one processor fails..neither are any good.
94209
Athlon is faster than pentium.
587921
Both CPUs are using clock speeds at different frequencies.  The performance delta between the two processors is going to be due to the internals of the processor.\n\nThe processor may have internal components which need to tell the clock "wait, I'm still working on something" and then let it know when it is finished.  That 'wait' operation takes the same amount of cycles on a faster clock as it does on a slower clock.\n\nSo, the main factors (aside from the outside of heat and cooling) are the number of clock cycles consumed by internal components of the processor.  The more 'streamlined' the internal components of a processor (i.e. the less clock cycles they consume) the faster they perform an operation.\n\nYes, it is possible to have a processor that operates at lower clock speeds and performs just as fast as processors that operate at higher clock speeds, only because they found a way to solve a problem in less steps.
352155
There are several classes and sub classes, but for the most part:\n\n286\n386\n486\npentium\n--pentium pro\nP2\n--Celeron, crippled P2 (or was it P3)\nP3\nCeleron becoms its own, less multimedia stuff in it\n(linux servers love'em)\nP4\n\nP4HT (Hyper Threading) apears to be 2 CPU's in one. but still one core)\n\nP4DC (Dual Core, acts as 2 cpus, becouse there is 2 coes on one physical chip)\n\nWithin those, there are many variations, for differnt applications such as servers, also there are differnt cache sizes for every one as well.\n\nSo if Joe has a P4-2GHz for $500 and Jane has a P4-2GHz for $100, well janes is going to kick joes butt, could be more cache, 1 meg etc..\n\nJust my 2Cents
910102
Hello Friend! \n Without hardware, software is not possible and without  software, hardware is not possible. They mutually depend on each other.
481906
I would be writing pages to tell you about this stuff so just go to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/209 and read how a CPU works.\n\nI have the feeling you're just trying to see if someone would actually draw you a picture and...well no.
58333
No, he is talking about how the raw processing power has typically doubled within 16 to 18 months.  It pretty much already has.  They have reached the limit as far as pushing the GHz limit.  Processors top out at 3.8GHz or 4GHz but with water cooling and overclocking it is possible to get them to 6GHz+ but that pretty much voids the warranty and should not be attempted unless you know what you are doing.\n\nNow they are finding more efficient ways of pushing data through the processor, better architectures, more efficient data paths, higher cache memory directly on the chip and so on.  Soon that limit too will be reached and they will have to find entirely new technologies to produce processors.  Some say optical processors, or something to replace silicon chips is making them with carbon nano-tubes.  Neural net processors are also being tested (one was taught to fly a plane - virtually).  None of these technologies will reach the mass market no sooner than 10 years but probably more like 15.
916708
no. not even if both cores can process the same task. but the CPU is faster when processing multiple tasks but not at the double speed. keep in mind that both cores uses one and the same resource - the system bus.
553452
Hyper-Threading.\nit's like a processor pretending to be 2.\ngenerally (depending on the application)\nit actually slows down performance\n\ni forgot the specifics on it, but it queus up instructions and splits them between two arithmetic logic units (ALUs)\nand other parts....\n\ndont take the second part of my answer word-for-word. i really don't remember the specifics
1075383
32 bit and there's only one processor! (with dual core)
5146
Yes, and no.\n\nOverall, they both work the same way.  However, they do it in different ways.  This is why they often give what looks like conflicting results on benchmarks.\n\nAMD uses a RISC processor.  RISC is much more efficent then the X86 processor that Intel uses.  This is why Apple uses RISC, and has done so since the beginning.\n\nIn many things, RISC is superior to X86.  Scientific number crunching, video compression, and audio compression are among those.  This is why AMD is often favored in those areas.\n\nThe X86 is better for raw number crunching though, which is why it is normally favored among those that use CAD and CAD related software.\n\nBecause of the RISC processor, AMD is able to outperform Intel when it comes to comparing GHz to GHz.  An AMD CPU that runs at around 2 GHz will outperform an Intel CPU that runs at 2 GHz every time.  This is why AMD processors do not follow GHz, but use a number that simulates how fast it would be if it was an Intel processor.\n\nAn Athlon 64 3500+ runs at only 2.2 GHz, but it performs just like an Intel P4 that runs at 3.5 GHz.  This is because of the more efficient processor.  And the lower speed means that the chip pulls less power and generates less heat then the one that runs at 3.5 GHz.
158010
Apparently this preticular CPU only  works on Laptop Motherboards so if you are looking to put it on a Desktop there isn't one currently out.
485043
Most programs have a starting point, follow an\nexecution path through the program, and finally\nhave an ending point.  These programs only have\na single "thread of execution".  Consider the\nsituation, however, where there is a "fork in the\nroad", and your program execution splits and\ngoes down *both* paths at the same time.\n\nIt's a more difficult model to engineer (since you\nhave to take care that the two executing components\ndon't interfere with each other), but it enables\nus to either logically partition a problem (ie. into\nproducer/consumer) or physically partition a problem\n(ie. onto the distinct hardware cores available\nfrom current processors).\n\nPeople sometimes use this phrase to cover both the\ncase of two "threads" (which share almost everything\nwithin a single process) as well as the case for\ntwo cooperating processes (which share almost nothing\nsince they are distinct processes).\n\nThe wikipedia reference in the previous answer is a great\nresource, but I thought this might be a more gentle\nintroduction.