| superchunk said: Additionally, 8 cores is completely unnecessary for anything. Most PCs only have quad-core for a reason. Its not a damn server. 4 or 5/6 cores is more than enough, even if you consider Kinect needing one core to itself; very likely. I'm betting on a 4core device with may a 2nd standalone CPU just for Kinect and/or OS. All 2011 (at best) tech and lower specs than high-end current PCs. |
If MS really goes AMD, then an 8core FX processor is almost dead certain. In order to understand why Kinect2 will use an even number of cores (my guess is it might be up to four cores if the two webcams are high resolution), you'd have to understand the design peculiarities of their new multicore processors (which have a decisive difference to Intel CPUs, which in the case of Kinect2, could actually turn out to be favourable for the AMD processor).
The idea of adding another CPU is, mildly put, odd - for reasons that were already discussed in another thread. It would simply be an engineering nightmare to design. The idea that a separate CPU would be used just for the OS is an odd idea in itself, as _every_ software running uses OS calls all the time.
Or written in simpler terms: (Price of 2 processors with 4 cores doing separat stuff) >>>>> (Price of an 8core processor doing all the stuff).
