Great... it's Quad Core... but why?

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
EDIT: Please read through this whole thread, it's got a LOT of great points and some reply's with GREAT information. THANKS!

I've gotta say that 4 cores doesn't really seem all that appealing to me at this point in time. At least NOT for your typical home user. Especially since dual core is finally starting to pick up some real steam. I'm hoping that app and game programmers will start actually utilizing these "multi-core" CPU's before we take off in to the "10-core" realm. It just seems like WAY too soon to already be thinking 4 cores. (anyone else share these thoughts?) I wish that even now the current dual cores could use the second core for something like physics processing. (a PPU just seems like a waste of money in it's current form... just check out the most recent Tom's review) The only way I can see wanting a quad core machine is if, for example, in games they could work it so that one core does AI, one core does physics, one runs your background apps/resources, and one does whatever single core would normally process during games. That seems like it would be good utilization, but hey... what do I know? I'm sure there are other uses like high end video editing, or CAD, or for Enterprise Servers, or something along those lines that some people may be able to use the multi core CPU's for; but not so much for the average user... at least not yet.

EDIT: My real fear is that with C2D and such coming out now only high end enthusiasts and Enterprise users will find any real value or use for quad cores or more at this time. (Enterprise b/c obviosly they can actually use the power in high end servers and such, and the enthusiasts really just for bragging rights) And because only high end consumers and Enterprise will find value it there may be a seriously large inventory left over... which could hurt both Intel and AMD. It just seems like too soon. My opinion is that they need to wait just a little bit until apps can actually utilize all these cores to make it worth the money. Dual core is great for now.
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
0
As to the Question why..

I would believe it to be because of the money to be made off of Enterprises that need that kind of processing power.

Or money to be made off of people who think they need that kind of processing power.
 

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
I would believe it to be because of the money to be made off of Enterprises that need that kind of processing power.
Ok, fair enough. I can see it for servers and such, but doesn't it seem like waste and/or overkill for the consumer desktop right now? "Yay... I've got 4 cores... but I'm never really using more than 2 at any given time... but I've got 4 of em."
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
0
Well for a 4 core desktop home user, I would find ridiculous. But of course I'm not ripping/gaming/defragging/downloading/formating/and compiling programs all at the same time.

I guess you can also compare it to SLI. I mean in most cases your going to get some what little increase in performance for the amount of money spent on a single GPU setup.

I just think its all about the money, and perhaps bragging rights of the person who purchased it.

Edit: Until they come up with programs that the majority of the popluation who uses computers that take good advantage over a 4 core system would be the reason to get one. I mean 64 bit is in its upcoming moments.
 

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
But of course I'm not ripping/gaming/defragging/downloading/formating/and compiling programs all at the same time.
LOL That's exaclty what I'm saying! Honestly, I think it could actually work against Intel and AMD to go quad core right now. I'm afraid that most smart people will realize that quad core isn't worth the price tag and there will be a large inventory just sitting around... which of course could really hurt both companies. Sure some people will buy them, but I don't think the demand will be anything like for the C2D.
 

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
because we can do it, why stop?
Well I don't think we should "stop", just wait a little bit before we go quad core. They should get a little more power out of the current dual cores, and give dev's time to start progamming for multi-core CPU's, THEN start going quad core when they would actually be worth it.
 

cyborg_ninja-117

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2006
327
0
18,780
0
because we can do it, why stop?
Well I don't think we should "stop", just wait a little bit before we go quad core. They should get a little more power out of the current dual cores, and give dev's time to start progamming for multi-core CPU's, THEN start going quad core when they would actually be worth it.

got a point there but, if they can optimize dual cores, wouldnt it be easier to just optimize programs for use of all cores?
 

p8ntslinger676

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2005
329
0
18,780
0
because we can do it, why stop?
Well I don't think we should "stop", just wait a little bit before we go quad core. They should get a little more power out of the current dual cores, and give dev's time to start progamming for multi-core CPU's, THEN start going quad core when they would actually be worth it.

exactly, once the programming is written to take advantage of multiple cores, you will deffinatly see an increase in performace, meaning there will be much better gaming with physics(hopefully) and if you are rendering stuff it will take much less time over a single core processor any day(i have spent hours rendering stuff and it is a complete pain in the ass to sit and wait when you could be putting that time to good use) faster encoding with music and video. there are endless amounts of possibilities for them its just waiting for the programming to come along and catch up
 

WhyFi

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
114
0
18,680
0
Man, what's with these calculator things?! My abacus does the job just fine!

If you have the capacity, you'll find a need.
 

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
got a point there but, if they can optimize dual cores, wouldnt it be easier to just optimize programs for use of all cores?
Well maybe I'm wrong on this, but I would assume that once they optimize software the work with more than one core then it would just scale as more cores are added... at least that's how I think it should work. LOL So even if they program for dual core now, then when quads are available it would just scale for 4 cores, or 8, ect.
 

FAT_ALBERT

Distinguished
Jun 10, 2006
52
0
18,630
0
There are several coding ways to detect multiplue cores, so if A program is made for dual core, alot of the time it would work on say...96 cores, with a preformance boost. Plus there could still be "reverse hyper threading"

Going quad core, even if you can't use it now means that someone wouldn't have to upgrade when they need more power for multitasking.

Quad Core Pwns (QCP)
 

will14

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2006
606
0
19,010
5
IMO amd will go with their what 2x2 core systems?
Called 4x4 for I have no idea why.
Then once they have their quad core they'll transition to what a total of 8 on the board.
True this won't have a performance increase to scale.
Also the price they can manufacture them at will come into effect.
There are those with too much money though that'll walk around screaming they have 8 cores though.
I'll just shrug bc my OC'd C2D will suit me fine and run cooler/more effeciently.
 

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
IMO amd will go with their what 2x2 core systems?
Called 4x4 for I have no idea why.
Two dual CPUs and two dual GPUs.

Now THAT might be kinda sweet, but it still seems like WAY overkill. Still a lot of unused power!
 

kmjohnso

Distinguished
Mar 14, 2006
190
0
18,680
0
Well, not everything multithreads well. So if you have modular code that is threading several non-threadable codes. It might not scale then beyond the number of non-threadable operations.

But lots of things won't have this problem. I have a 16core "workstation" at work and all I want is more cores....
 

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
I have a 16core "workstation" at work and all I want is more cores....
Dude where the hell do you work? lol I assume you mean it's a "server" not a "workstation" right? Or maybe your doing some SERIOUS number crunching for like nuclear explosion simulations or something! lol
 

JonathanDeane

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2006
1,469
0
19,310
6
IMO amd will go with their what 2x2 core systems?
Called 4x4 for I have no idea why.
Two dual CPUs and two dual GPUs.

Now THAT might be kinda sweet, but it still seems like WAY overkill. Still a lot of unused power!

Yes unused for now but I would call it future proofing :) If I spend alot of money on my system I like to make sure it will last me at least 2 years. My cheaper builds I could care less if they go 6 months lol
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
0
I have a 16core "workstation" at work and all I want is more cores....
Dude where the hell do you work? lol I assume you mean it's a "server" not a "workstation" right? Or maybe your doing some SERIOUS number crunching for like nuclear explosion simulations or something! lol

The only thing I see that catches my eye is the word..

MORE

:lol:

It will never be enough.. will it?
 

Dante_Jose_Cuervo

Distinguished
May 9, 2006
867
0
18,990
2
Grimmy wrote:
I would believe it to be because of the money to be made off of Enterprises that need that kind of processing power.


Ok, fair enough. I can see it for servers and such, but doesn't it seem like waste and/or overkill for the consumer desktop right now? "Yay... I've got 4 cores... but I'm never really using more than 2 at any given time... but I've got 4 of em."
Good point. It is a bit of overkill for all but the enthusiast right now but hey, it's like getting a Ferrari or something. Sure you have a V12 with gobs of hp, but why? Just because... Now for the enterprises... it's all about getting things done and with more cores... more work gets done. I mean I can see where the whole desktop thing plays in but with the way people multitask... it may not be that bad of an idea.
 

sony3127

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2006
150
0
18,680
0
JonathanDeane said:
Yes unused for now but I would call it future proofing :) If I spend alot of money on my system I like to make sure it will last me at least 2 years. My cheaper builds I could care less if they go 6 months lol
Yes, but with the rate of advance in graphics and such, that "future proofed" super expensive build is going to be WAY out of date in just two years. Take the difference in video cards from two years ago and the generation of DX10 cards coming out soon. That's a huge gap not only in performance but the technologies that are implimented.

BTW I'd rather spend less money more often by building/upgrading more often, also keeping up with technology. Instead of spending $2500 every couple of years, I sell my "old" system and take a little bit of saved up money every 6 months and do a new build and/or major upgrades. The total cost was around $2500 on my last build... my most expensive build to date. However only about $300 of that actually came "out of my pocket" as I used money from selling the "old" parts. (which in fact were only 6 months old so they still had a good resell value) So $300 bucks or so every six months means I only spend about half as much money and I'm always up-to-date. (my current build has lasted me the longest, but I'm upgrading here in a couple of months hopefully... just been too busy! lol)
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS