> significantly better speed than a non-threaded memcpy() Really? I always thought that a single core could always saturate available memory bandwidth (unless

> significantly better speed than a non-threaded memcpy() Really? I always thought that a single core could always saturate available memory bandwidth (unless you have some weird architecture like NUMA). If you're seeing a multithread memcpy that has better performance speed, maybe you're just stealing memory bandwidth from other processes (since AFAIK memory bandwidth is probably done on a per-thread basis), or maybe you're getting more CPU cache allocated to you because you're running on multiple cores? This would be interesting to investigate.