How Do Multi-Core Processors work?

[tharden3]

When you get a 2.4 GHz Core Duo, are you splitting one 2.4 processor into two parts, or do you literally have two 2.4 GHz processors? Same for a Quad Core?

[Nepomuk]

If I'm not very mistaken, it's the latter: you have 2 (or 4) 2.4GHz Processors.

Greetings,
Nepomuk

[tharden3]

If I'm not very mistaken, it's the latter: you have 2 (or 4) 2.4GHz Processors.

Greetings,
Nepomuk

yes, several people said the same thing on Yahoo answers. Thanks

[JosAH]

yes, several people said the same thing on Yahoo answers. Thanks

I wonder why you asked your question here; Google is your friend.

kind regards,

Jos

[Nepomuk]

I wonder why you asked your question here; Google is your friend.

That's weird - I thought Google and Wikipedia were two different sites (although Google often sends you to Wikipedia). But there you go... ;-)

Greetings,
Nepomuk

[JosAH]

That's weird - I thought Google and Wikipedia were two different sites (although Google often sends you to Wikipedia). But there you go... ;-)

Greetings,
Nepomuk

I gave you the result that Google gave me, you whippersnapper ;-)

kind regards,

Jos

[myusernotyours]

yes, several people said the same thing on Yahoo answers. Thanks

Wikipedia is your friend use it... ;-)

[Sageword]

Wikipedia is your friend use it... ;-)

Also, you can add 'wiki' to your search term to do this even better -- When researching, stick your usual keywords into the google search field, but add 'wiki' to the end, and wikipedia or other wiki results bubble to the top.

[YarrOfDoom]

Wikipedia is your friend use it... ;-)

Yet still my teachers keep saying it isn't a good resource...

[tharden3]

Yet still my teachers keep saying it isn't a good resource...

I get the same response. My teachers hate it. But for the most part, at least the articles I've seen, it's been pretty accurate in comparing it with other information. I don't see anything wrong with it. I think one or two history events were written incorrectly, and that kind started a snowball. They blew the inaccuracy out of proportion.

[Nepomuk]

Yet still my teachers keep saying it isn't a good resource...

Well, there can be a lot of crap in there, as anyone can edit what it says there. But most of what you find there is actually very good! Of course, if you are doing some piece of work, you can hardly state Wikipedia as your resource, but in good articles it will give the sources for that article at the bottom.

Greetings,
Nepomuk

[Curtis Rutland]

Yeah, Wiki is the worst possible source to cite in a paper or assignment, but one of the best to find other sources to cite, since most Wiki articles cite many sources. Wiki can occasionally be unreliable on some of the more obscure topics, but there is an army of bored Wiki editors that will swarm on inaccuracies in the more popular subjects.

So, check wiki, but also check the sources that they cite, and use them as your source.

Or you could spend some time getting to know my old friend Encyclopedia Britannica. You young pups :P

/me confesses that he would be seen as a "young pup" by many on this site

[YarrOfDoom]

Or you could spend some time getting to know my old friend Encyclopedia Britannica.

But wikipedia has more information on modern things, I'd doubt EB has an article about this .

[tharden3]

But wikipedia has more information on modern things, I'd doubt EB has an article about this .

And to think, there are actually people out there threadjacking right now! Sheesh! Good thing we keep convicts like these out of Bytes.com though.

;)

[Ganon11]

Wikipedia is usually very accurate on issues that are not currently being debated. For instance, it is probably a reliable source for information on, say Dante's Inferno, but not so much on, say, Abortion.