cubase is very multicore efficient..

i have arrangements that completely max out my dualcore, time for a 16core platform.

go drum'n'bass

If you fire up a couple of soft synths and a couple of software guitar effects on top of Cubase, then all these run as different processes on different cpus. You don't really need a multi-threaded program to exploit multi core as long as you are running many things at the same time. You can even play a game while photoshop is batch processing your photo archive if you have many cores. Thus more cores is better :)

AT adds: More cores ARE better. Good grammar costs nothing. You sure you're not a drummer?

@ Solfegietto

yes actually there are things that use multi cores like cubase. This is very helpful to get big arrangements done on 1 pc at a time.

Am I dead or a sleep or could I be in another reality INTEL the once proud owners of the power hungary CPU's are dropping in wattage.

Wow technology does run fast or did they get threatend with a fine if they didn't drop the power consumption.

My mates P4 805 DC takes 135w if I am not mistaken while my AMD 3800 X2 takes 79w. Not matter how you see it AMD was the best for low wattage always will be unless that new phemon part go t**s up.

I just hope one day they will do Auto-Checkup of Cores and Distribution of work on each cores, bc nothing uses 4 cores At this time and they are now talking of 6 and 8 cores when nothing uses 4 core ATM...

Given Intel usually delivers graphics features 2 years after they promise, I thought I had to ask. For the record, the G965 STILL does not support DX10, 18 months after Intel promised.

40W quad core part? Sounds like a nice cpu to go into my next laptop...