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

[sony3127]

No I think you have a valid question chris. Unfortuatly we've only had agent and TC who seem to have any kind of programming experience post in here. I may be off too, but that's why I posted this topic b/c I'm hoping more people will shed some light on why Intel would release these quad cores so soon after C2D.

 

[chrislax20]

My point is this:

Quake 4 is one good example. When it came out, it was pretty much designed for single core. Then the update SMP made it to where perfromance increased for the game on the system dual core CPU side.

I can only imagine the same would apply for quad cores as time goes by.

SO, right now quad core system (say 2 C2D) would NOT see any performance increase over a dual core system in Quake 4, despite the fact that Quake 4 is optimized for "multi core systems." Right?

 

[sony3127]

My point is this:

Quake 4 is one good example. When it came out, it was pretty much designed for single core. Then the update SMP made it to where perfromance increased for the game on the system dual core CPU side.

I can only imagine the same would apply for quad cores as time goes by.

SO, right now quad core system (say 2 C2D) would NOT see any performance increase over a dual core system in Quake 4, despite the fact that Quake 4 is optimized for "multi core systems." Right?

Hmmm... well, see we DON'T know that it won't get a performance boost as of yet because quad cores aren't out yet. We don't know that it's specifially DUAL core optimized and not MULTI core optimized. We'll see as time goes by.

 

[chrislax20]

I think we agree, just in a round about way...good discussion though. Hopefully someone who knows a bit about software programing can shed some light on my question as that is the answer we are looking for.

Nice system BTW sony...I have the same processor, HDD setup, and sound card!

 

[sony3127]

I think we agree, just in a round about way...good discussion though. Hopefully someone who knows a bit about software programing can shed some light on my question as that is the answer we are looking for.

Nice system BTW sony...I have the same processor, HDD setup, and sound card!

Thanks! Great minds think alike ya know! LOL

 

[agentbb007]

However, one thing I am very aware of is that NONE of the software I currently own and use is multi-threaded. It is all single threaded. If I bought a dual-core or quad-core processor I would not stand to benefit much from it.

WoW NONE huh?? 8O So you don't use internet explorer 7 or Mozilla Firefox? Wonder how your posting, oh your using Pine in Linux eh? The more likely answer is you don't know if your applications are threaded or not?

It's really easy to watch threads opening/closing in XP. Open up Task Manager, click on the Performance tab and look in the Totals group box and watch the number next to "Threads" fluxuate... Everytime I open a new tab in IE 7 it creates a new Thread, can you believe it IE 7 is already Dual-Core, Quad-Core, Sex-Core, Oct-Core, the list goes on and on and I'm ready for as many cores as they want to put in a processor...

 

[sony3127]

WoW NONE huh?? 8O So you don't use internet explorer 7 or Mozilla Firefox? Wonder how your posting, oh your using Pine in Linux eh?

No offense, but maybe he's using IE6. Or is that already multi-threaded? If so, then I stand corrected.

 

[agentbb007]

WoW NONE huh?? 8O So you don't use internet explorer 7 or Mozilla Firefox? Wonder how your posting, oh your using Pine in Linux eh?

No offense, but maybe he's using IE6. Or is that already multi-threaded? If so, then I stand corrected.

Yes I know, very few people have downloaded IE7, but my point is almost ALL applications use threads so either all he uses is really OLD DOS 7.0 software or he doesn't know the programs he's running are multi-threaded.

 

[agentbb007]

SO, right now quad core system (say 2 C2D) would NOT see any performance increase over a dual core system in Quake 4, despite the fact that Quake 4 is optimized for "multi core systems." Right?

First let me clarify a Quad Core CPU and 2 dual-core CPU's would be very different, a quad core CPU would be faster then 2 dual-core CPU's because both cores are on the same processor, and both share the same memory controller, each processor accesses the semaphore at microprocessor speed, almost as fast as accessing a L2 cache.

With 2 physical CPU's they cannot share the same memory controller which is why a dual-core system will smoke a system running 2 physical CPU's.

Now on to your question will a quad-core run "Quake 4" faster. All we can do is look at past benchmarks to determine this, I'll look at some benchmarks and post again.

 

[ghostface24]

If you get into ripping and encoding movies, you'll find that 4 cores on a processor is very helpful. Especially when you're trying to get movies done at a fast rate. Let's say that if the next gen formats (HD-DVD or BluRay) can be ripped, imagine the size of the movies. Compressing 25 gigs of video is a lot of work (using the Transport Streams that are usually 1080i), but imagine 50 gigs. 4 cores will be very good in this process. In the future, 4 cores might be helpful to OSs such as Vista or Linux...and OSX.

If you're a home user, just stick to the lower level processors. Too much power is a good thing, but when it's not used, it's just pure waste.

 

[cyborg_ninja-117]

where the hell is coolaler when you need him benchmarking...

 

[illuminatirex]

i think for an "average" pc user thats not much of a gamer even the lowest (clocked) cpu's are an overkill(performance wise) but for gamers they are just "needed" if thats not an overstatement, in regards to quad cores i also think thay are a great overkill nowedays, but in that ...2 years or so when we will have all if not many apps that support multithreading fully it will be just right, to be honest i think that sometimes software devs begin to be "sloppy" and think that if they have a topend system to work on all other consumers also do , and they begin to not pay so much atention to code efficiency, and that "works on all pc's" way of designing softeware begins to disappear, and scalability is becoming less important.

 

[agentbb007]

SO, right now quad core system (say 2 C2D) would NOT see any performance increase over a dual core system in Quake 4, despite the fact that Quake 4 is optimized for "multi core systems." Right?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/page3.asp

At 800x600 all the 3 chips got 69% performance gains with dual cores, when you get to higher resolutions with AA and AF graphics card is what's slowing things down, not the CPU.

So from these benchmarks IMHO a Quad-Core CPU would show a performance increase in Quake 4 at 800x600.

 

[ghostface24]

If you use your computer to intensity, then 4 cores isn't much overkill. Let's say you have H.264 movies, it's barely playable without GPU acceleration (CoreAVC is way better than ATI's and Nvidia's approach btw, much more performance). Many computers have a hard time watching H.264, most common application would be movies from Apple or other vendors. Since H.264 is the choice for next-gen formats, you'll pretty much be stuck between buying a new video card with GPU acceleration, or a new CPU. My computer can't run movies with a resolution of 1280x720 Progressive in H.264, and since HD-DVD and Blu-ray have a resolution of 1920x1080p, imagine that struggle. Now, you would have to have in possession an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray Drive, but the safest bet would be to have an internal drive because some players can't render 1080p and just downstream it to 1080i. And if you didn't know it, interlacing really does suck.

 

[Garfunkel]

I am reading in this Forum for a long time now, and visit the THG page for years and this thread finally made me register to answer a thread.
By the way, i am a C++ programmer, also with knowlege of Java, C# and some other less common languages.

1. I want all you people out there (if you are using Windows) to press "Ctrl + Alt + Del" and go to the Processes tab (sorry for my bad english, not my own language). A "normal" User would find there about 30 to 60 processes, and on a Single-Core-Machine they are being processed by only one core, but all are running at the same time. You get what I am saying? Yes, only one at a time gets CPU time and all the others have to wait. With Hyperthreading (remember? Pentium 4) and real Dual-Core you can work two processes at the same time (this does not apply 100% for Hyperthreading, it works a little bit different).
This of course is only possible, because the modern opperating systems (Windows, Linux, etc.) are all able to work on multicores. So you do not have to only use Software especially for dual or more cores, because your operating system organizes the use of all available cpus.
2. As I said, I am a developer on my own and it is easy as hell to write your stuff in threads and is being used for years now. that does not mean you can`t specialize your programm a little bit more and make it way faster if you know you have more cores available, how that is possible would need way more than this thread to explain and a few weeks of my and yours time.

Review: Even todays user are capable of using multi-core and most of them would feel the difference in speed. I mean, how many of you are using a firewall, anti-virus-programm, maybe deamon-tools, p2p-software, winamp etc. at the same time and still want to play on the same machine at the same time? Much faster and easier on multi-core also if each programm is only programmed for single-cpu.
And, as shown by current Dual-Core Cpus (does not matter if Intel or AMD) you can run these with less MHz, less power consumption and still have a faster machine, not only for enterprises interresting.

Again, sorry for my bad english i am not used to write (other than code) in english.

 

[chrislax20]

Thanks for the link, 007. That is good information. However I think you missed my point. Software engineers went back and optimized quake 4 for "dual core processors." However, people are claiming that once optimized, any amount of cores will show an improvement because once it is programed for "multithreading" it will scale to infinite processors. I disagree.

I think that it needs to be optimized for the amount of cores in the software. If it is optimized for 2 cores, 4 cores shouldn't make a difference, just as the original quake 4 (before the update) did not take advantage of dual core systems. Make sense?

All I am arguing is that no matter how high the number of cores is, the software engineers will always be the limiting factor as they can program to take advantage of X cores. Why would we need 16 threaded internet explorer? At a certain point I think programs will be limited for how many threads they need.

So, to multitask on your octi core processor, maybe you run a game optimized for 4 cores, itunes in the backround optimized for 2, and then the system running on the other 2.

If you just say a program is "multithreaded" and will scale to infinite processors, then it defeats the purpose of multiple cores to begin with...multitasking. It is a good idea to have multithreaded apps but I do not think that once 4 core processors come out, all apps will be "multithreaded" and can use all cores, some apps may only be programed to use 2...

 

[sony3127]

I am reading in this Forum for a long time now, and visit the THG page for years and this thread finally made me register to answer a thread.
By the way, i am a C++ programmer, also with knowlege of Java, C# and some other less common languages.

1. I want all you people out there (if you are using Windows) to press "Ctrl + Alt + Del" and go to the Processes tab (sorry for my bad english, not my own language). A "normal" User would find there about 30 to 60 processes, and on a Single-Core-Machine they are being processed by only one core, but all are running at the same time. You get what I am saying? Yes, only one at a time gets CPU time and all the others have to wait. With Hyperthreading (remember? Pentium 4) and real Dual-Core you can work two processes at the same time (this does not apply 100% for Hyperthreading, it works a little bit different).
This of course is only possible, because the modern opperating systems (Windows, Linux, etc.) are all able to work on multicores. So you do not have to only use Software especially for dual or more cores, because your operating system organizes the use of all available cpus.
2. As I said, I am a developer on my own and it is easy as hell to write your stuff in threads and is being used for years now. that does not mean you can`t specialize your programm a little bit more and make it way faster if you know you have more cores available, how that is possible would need way more than this thread to explain and a few weeks of my and yours time.

Review: Even todays user are capable of using multi-core and most of them would feel the difference in speed. I mean, how many of you are using a firewall, anti-virus-programm, maybe deamon-tools, p2p-software, winamp etc. at the same time and still want to play on the same machine at the same time? Much faster and easier on multi-core also if each programm is only programmed for single-cpu.
And, as shown by current Dual-Core Cpus (does not matter if Intel or AMD) you can run these with less MHz, less power consumption and still have a faster machine, not only for enterprises interresting.

Again, sorry for my bad english i am not used to write (other than code) in english.

THANK YOU GARFUNKEL!!! Now THAT is exactly what I was looking for! Sweet, so quad core will be worth it! Now we just have to make sure everyone sees this! lol

Your point is well taken, thanks again for the info. I don't know why I didn't see all of that before, but what you're saying makes complete sense. So basically even if you're an "avearage" user you will be able to use all the cores because it's not so much spreading one apps tasks over many cores but the many different tasks/threads that are running anyway across multiple cores. GOT CHA! Oh, and welcome to the boards. (even though you were a long time "lurker" like I was before I actually registered)

 

[CannedTurkey]

Excellent post Garfunkel.

Don't worry about your English, your spelling and grammar are better than alot of others I've seen post here.

 

[chrislax20]

I am reading in this Forum for a long time now, and visit the THG page for years and this thread finally made me register to answer a thread.
By the way, i am a C++ programmer, also with knowlege of Java, C# and some other less common languages.

1. I want all you people out there (if you are using Windows) to press "Ctrl + Alt + Del" and go to the Processes tab (sorry for my bad english, not my own language). A "normal" User would find there about 30 to 60 processes, and on a Single-Core-Machine they are being processed by only one core, but all are running at the same time. You get what I am saying? Yes, only one at a time gets CPU time and all the others have to wait. With Hyperthreading (remember? Pentium 4) and real Dual-Core you can work two processes at the same time (this does not apply 100% for Hyperthreading, it works a little bit different).
This of course is only possible, because the modern opperating systems (Windows, Linux, etc.) are all able to work on multicores. So you do not have to only use Software especially for dual or more cores, because your operating system organizes the use of all available cpus.
2. As I said, I am a developer on my own and it is easy as hell to write your stuff in threads and is being used for years now. that does not mean you can`t specialize your programm a little bit more and make it way faster if you know you have more cores available, how that is possible would need way more than this thread to explain and a few weeks of my and yours time.

Review: Even todays user are capable of using multi-core and most of them would feel the difference in speed. I mean, how many of you are using a firewall, anti-virus-programm, maybe deamon-tools, p2p-software, winamp etc. at the same time and still want to play on the same machine at the same time? Much faster and easier on multi-core also if each programm is only programmed for single-cpu.
And, as shown by current Dual-Core Cpus (does not matter if Intel or AMD) you can run these with less MHz, less power consumption and still have a faster machine, not only for enterprises interresting.

Again, sorry for my bad english i am not used to write (other than code) in english.

I stand corrected. Great information. Although my point about applications taking advantage of multiple cores remains!!!

When you press Ctrl Alt Del on your comp when running a game, it comes up as 1 application!

 

[chrislax20]

Excellent post Garfunkel.

Don't worry about your English, your spelling and grammar are better than alot of others I've seen post here.

 

[CannedTurkey]

Excellent post Garfunkel.

Don't worry about your English, your spelling and grammar are better than alot of others I've seen post here.

Umm... it was a typo? :lol:

 

[chrislax20]

I'm sure I have made many. Sorry I wasn't trying to be a douche.

 

[CannedTurkey]

No worries. It was a definite "D'oh!" moment, and it made me laugh when you caught it.

 

[Grimmy]

I understand what Garfunkel is saying about how many processes and threads maybe running, and how it would be nice that more cores could even the load.

If memory serves, when you have threads/processes running in the background, its usually going to be tied to one processor, by design.

Now if the application has been optimize to take advantage, usually means:

A multi-threaded application allows the workload of one application to be broken out and processed in parallel, thereby taking advantage of multiple CPUs.

There are still articles out there that still debate whether a home user will really benefit much from dual or quad core CPU's. It's going to be a matter if time when software dev's can it all working to the best benefit.

Edit: I remember someone had a list of programs that were optimized for dual cores. Quake 4 is just one game. I just can seem to find that thread.

 

[BaronMatrix]

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.


AMDs first quad core will be for servers. they are not planning a quad desktop before the end of next year.

4x4 will fit in this space until then. I WILL be buying 4x4 ASAP. I do need the extra power.