People did not know exactly what to do with them and thought it was complicsted
Zoomer here
Matthew Lee
Christian Gonzalez
>memory controller onboard
That shit still amazes me to this day, Intel didn't have an on chip IMC until 2008 with Bloomfield i7 and AMDhad it in 2003.
William Martinez
Originally they were absolutely dominated by AMD, and Intel dual cores were for retarded fuckheads and shills. In a couple years Intel took the lead back. It was the golden age for AMD. Ryzen hopes to bring back that magic by dominating i9 but we will see. It won't be the same as before, even if it is better on paper.
Cooper Perez
Depends on who you asked. It was mostly a gimmick to gamers and other home users who were running a handful of single-threaded applications at once. In the high-end it was a great way to reduce power consumption and increase density in multi-processor systems.
AMD fanboys are the mactards of computer hardware. 64-bit and multi-core existed in high-end machines for years prior to AMD finally bringing them over to the consumer realm.
Bentley Ward
This
Josiah Gonzalez
>multi-core existed in high-end machines for years
Of course espensive ass servers and dual processors existed prior to AMD bringing it to the masses, but the point is that AMD brought it to us for less money when Intel refused to innovate.
Liam Mitchell
Wrong
Caleb Peterson
>coping this hard
There is a big difference between processors the with cooling the size of a fucking bean bag chair, and ones that you can fit in a laptop or a cheap desktop. Any retard can make the former, which is why so many retards were making them in the 80s.
Let's try not to pretend like Intel was dominant with the dual cores by downplaying AMDs achievements.
Ian Watson
Who said anything about Intel? Early multi-core processors were mostly pioneered by IBM, HP and Sun, while credit for 64-bit goes to MIPS and DEC. I'm just reminding you that AMD did not literally invent modern computing just because they shit out a cheap dual-core chip at the same time everyone else was. Even Apple was going dual-core in 2005.
Justin Ross
A lot of people said you wouldn't need a core2quad back in the XP days, iirc Windows 98 and 95 could only use 1 core or something.