Is the CPU industry dead?

[mpasternak]

Endyem

argument against your case though. look at all you're listing... as a manager, I wouldnt want my employees doing all that

they're at work. ALL they should be doing is work. not downloading tech specs or a joke or what not.. the majority of employees where i work, need nothing more than a 2.5ish celeron. what do they have open?

a web browser or two. Excell maybe. Word with a few resume's and Lotus Notes for Database searches.... and they can run all fine on a 2 - 2.5 ghz computer.

THIS is the majority of the true workforce. Clerical work that does not require rendering and stuff. don't get me wrong, there are cetain fields that need it. (We place engineers and CAD designers, they need it at their work) but the majority of this company will never need a processor capable of running 12312 tasks at once.

you may argue that this seems a very short sighted view. like Gates "you'll never need mroe than 640K", but in the mean time with the current forecast of computing they won't. all End user work software for the most part has stopped pushing the technology.

Where we notice the push is needed. More and More applications are centralizing onto a server. with databases becomming mroe and more critical and bigger and bigger. it's not the end user needing the better performance, but the servers.

For example. We Currently use a Lotus Domino based database. each client ran a lotus client software and when queries were submitted ran like ahog to get them done (even with the server doing most of the work). We're replacing it with an SQL based database application. the client for the new software takes 1/2 the resources the old one did. but the server software takes a good 5x the esources.

Thanksfully though it looks like the major companies realise that the business market for servers isnt diminishing and there's still a big push for faster innovation there

 

[Deleted member 978]

Dual core compliant?? That has no meaning in the context presented -- one codes software to make use of multiple CPU, there is no "compliance". Any software is "compliant" with dual core CPUs (old or new).

One: The example you presented are several applications not ONE application -- in YOUR example you are hoping the OS will managed each applications thread (or threads). WinXP is notorious stupid and is a VERY poor manager of application threads. WinXP may or may not apply those application threads to the appropriate CPU.

Two: when developing a threaded application the developer needs to look at how (and even if) running separate threads for tasks required can be of benefit -- if the nature of the applicaiton is to wait for thread X to finish before thread Y can start, then multiple CPUs isn't gonna help at all.

Three: nobody can claim they know what the typical user does. If you can make these claims you'd be the most valuable marketing person on this planet.

Now assuming the application is conceptually capable of having multiple threads, then developer must manage those threads and also manage the CPU those threads are executed on. The Key being the developer manages the CPU assignment of threads NOT the OS -- letting the OS do the assignment could (and does) result in very little improvement of performance. So now the developer has the task of assigning threads to specific CPUs and then must coordinate the completion of those threads. Also, debugging multi-threaded applications is considerably more involved than a standard linear coded application.

Summary:
1. WinXP is really bad at managing threads on separate CPUs
2. Development time for CPU specific threaded code will increase (and the costs)
3. The application needs to be conceptually capable of making use of CPU specific threads (more time in specification/design and again more cost)

The bottom line is that those apps are gonna take longer to produce and cost more. If AMD/Intel think they can go into cruise mode for the next 2-5 years hoping software developers start coding "real" multiple CPU support then they are gonna be in a world of financial hurt. AMD/Intel need to work on unlocking the true potential of their CPUs if they want to survive -- the performance potential is being choked by the chipsets, motherboard, and memory (which has NOT kept up with CPU progress).

 

[Deleted member 978]

I'm British -- boarding school - Rosall (near Blackpool). Racial comments -- another PC monitor in da house with little or nothing to say.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Oh please, show some maturity if you want people to take you seriously.

(\__/)
(='.'=) <A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
(")_(")

 

[Deleted member 978]

Ok whatever you say Ned, I've been around this place a hell of a lot longer than you have Ned so dial back your "Father" figure please.

And please stop the crying "Racist" BS -- it serves no purpose and is just spew to try to divert the content.

 

[Zoron]

All right... let's cut to the chase... since you like beating around the bush so much.

Who today, right now, would buy an "8 GHz" CPU? Answer the question honestly... I mean I know you would, but who else?

How much would this CPU cost? I'm guessing at least $1200 in today's market. How many of these CPUs do you think are going to sell at that price? Again, be honest.

If you think for a minute that the cost to research and develop an "8 GHz" CPU is going to be offset by the huge number of people wanting one... you're sadly mistaken. The demand isn't there. You don't waste resources in R & D developing a product no one is going to buy... yet somehow it still isn't sinking in.

Just because you want an "8 GHz" CPU, you assume the vast majority of us want it as well. (Well, I'm sure some of us wouldn't mind... but I digress). Yes, I've heard the wild claims that Intel said "this architecture will take us to 10 GHz... blah blah blah"... but I wasn't stupid enough to assume we'd all have 10 GHz processors within a year. With heat and other issues... it was pretty damn clear that Intel or AMD would have trouble hitting 5 GHz... let alone 8 or 10. Hell, Intel won't even get to 4 GHz the way things are now.

Get the damn clock speed mentality out of your head. Clock speed isn't the only way to improve performance. I have no doubt that both AMD and Intel are going to develop something big within the next couple of years. This doesn't mean "8 GHz" CPUs... but it will mean better-performing CPUs.



<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>

 

[Clob]

V8VENOM: Did you ever think that people (like me) would buy a dualcore CPU to run more than one application without the limitation of a singlecore, the price of a dual-cpu setup, or having multiple computer systems?! WOW! Thats more Logic! Hopefully that can enter your mind and take effect. It seems as if the logic and very valid reasoning of the others here is above your own, that you can not bear the taste of defeat, or spare your ego long enough to learn somthing and admit that you are wrong. This constant arguing over somthing very trivial and out of our controll is in fact pointless! Why must you continue Venom?

<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"

 

[dhlucke]

To be honest, I barely notice the difference between my XP 2400+ and my A64 3200+ Winchester at 2.4Ghz. I simply don't use much that really requires the horsepower so the times I notice the difference are few and far between.

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!

 

[endyen]

I have an xp2000 sitting next to my a64 3200+ @ 2.45 Boy can I notice a difference. Then again, the primary use for the xp is folding, so it's kind of like continually benchmarking.
If you guessed that I use the A64 for my gaming, because it is that much better , you would be really right.

 

[endyen]

Dual core compliant?? That has no meaning in the context presented -- one codes software to make use of multiple CPU, there is no "compliance". Any software is "compliant" with dual core CPUs (old or new).

Grasping at straws are we? If you didn't understand that to mean capable of using bothe cores...

One: The example you presented are several applications not ONE application -- in YOUR example you are hoping the OS will managed each applications thread (or threads). WinXP is notorious stupid and is a VERY poor manager of application threads. WinXP may or may not apply those application threads to the appropriate CPU.

Two different points. 1, nobody runs only 1 application at a time any more. That's the main point behind dual cores.
2 xp doesn't do thread assignment weel Sounds like software is holding up the hardware revolution once again. Fortunately Vista is just around the corner.

The bottom line is that those apps are gonna take longer to produce and cost more

And your point is? If it gets the job done faster, there's profit to be made for everyone.

AMD/Intel think they can go into cruise mode for the next 2-5 years

That is a joke. Intel has just been working through a major change in thier roadmap. They are killing themselves trying to catch up to Amd, and all you can do is say they are in cruise mode? Do you have any idea of the work required to get a new chip out the door?
Ever heard the expression "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Chip makers could use all they can get, since even for thoses angels, today's transistors are very small.
Here's a thought for you. The number of engineers who are capable of being involved in devoloping a new stepping, are very limited. Each new change, sends a few of them over the edge. They are a limited resource, that you want to push beyond reasonable limits to sate some unimportant person whim.
Too late. You just aren't worth it any more.

 

[endyen]

Dual core compliant?? That has no meaning in the context presented -- one codes software to make use of multiple CPU, there is no "compliance". Any software is "compliant" with dual core CPUs (old or new).

Grasping at straws are we? If you didn't understand that to mean capable of using bothe cores...

One: The example you presented are several applications not ONE application -- in YOUR example you are hoping the OS will managed each applications thread (or threads). WinXP is notorious stupid and is a VERY poor manager of application threads. WinXP may or may not apply those application threads to the appropriate CPU.

Two different points. 1, nobody runs only 1 application at a time any more. That's the main point behind dual cores.
2 xp doesn't do thread assignment well. Sounds like software is holding up the hardware revolution once again. Fortunately Vista is just around the corner.

The bottom line is that those apps are gonna take longer to produce and cost more

And your point is? If it gets the job done faster, there's profit to be made for everyone.

AMD/Intel think they can go into cruise mode for the next 2-5 years

That is a joke. Intel has just been working through a major change in thier roadmap. They are killing themselves trying to catch up to Amd, and all you can do is say they are in cruise mode? Do you have any idea of the work required to get a new chip out the door?
Ever heard the expression "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Chip makers could use all they can get, since even for thoses angels, today's transistors are very small.
Here's a thought for you. The number of engineers who are capable of being involved in devoloping a new stepping, are very limited. Each new change, sends a few of them over the edge. They are a limited resource, that you want to push beyond reasonable limits to sate some unimportant personal whim.
Too late. You just aren't worth it any more.

 

[Deleted member 978]

Again you don't have enough knowledge to understand -- but you are correct I should not waste time helping you understand the concepts of threaded applications and multiple CPUs. Because you run several applications, that does NOT mean the OS will parse out those applications efficiently to each CPU. So are you saying if you want to run 4 applications at the same time you need 4 CPUs?? Give me a break please. If you want a clue on just how many threads are using up you CPU cycles go into control panel, administrative tools, Services -- you see that long list -- all those services are applications running in the background with timed threads consuming your processing power -- on my system I have about 50 of these activitely running, so you got 50 CPUs??

Ask yourself these questions and maybe you'll start to see the big picture:

1. How long have multipe CPU systems (dual core or 2 single cores) been available to the mass market at affordable prices?

2. How many CPU specific threaded applications exist since multiple CPU systems have existed (your answer to 1)?

Now think hard and then you might just start to understand. Dual core is NOTHING NEW to software developers cause it is the same as two CPU's in fact Hyperthreading is the same "virtual" concept.

 

[Clob]

Once agian your logic is flawed. Just because there are 50 applications running, doesn't mean that they are all using up the CPU!

Edit: You need to account into the fact that dualcore is much easyer to install and configure than a dual cpu system. Making somthing easy and effective can have positive influence on customers and boost popularity and possibly make it mainstream. Now that having more than one CPU is becoming more and more popular, It is logical to expect multi threaded application to become more practical to use!

<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Clob on 09/23/05 07:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[endyen]

on my system I have about 50 of these activitely running,

Actively? I think not. BTW, what kind of moron would leave that many apps eating memory resources.
If you really dont understand what I am saying, you have my pity.
For my part, I know how to manage resources so that dual core will do little for me. For people who dont know how to control background apps, and want to "multi-task", dual core is a real benefit.
You should really give dual core a try, you seem like a perfect candidate.

 

[K8MAN]

LOL i wish i could have gotten in on this discussion because this guy is obviously an idiot and will not give up a losing fight.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK

 

[dhlucke]

Ok, but do you have the same videocard in both rigs?

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!

 

[endyen]

Wrong question. I'm embarassed to admit that I have my 9600p in my gaming rig and haven't swapped it for the 9800pro in the folding rig. I will get around to it. I was just testing things out, and haven't switched back, because I really want an x800xl.

 

[dhlucke]

I have a x800xl.

A couple things. First of all if you run at really high resolutions (I run at 1920x1200) and play games like BF2, it's good, but I'd seriously fork out more money if I was to do it again.

Second, if you're not running at those really high resolutions, the card is wicked.

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!

 

[Clob]

Yes... That question also interests me!

<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"

 

[Deleted member 978]

Too [-peep-]' old -- you folks are beyond ignorant. None of you understand the OS and the how to code thread apps for multiple CPUs.

What a bunch of tools.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Leave then, before we ban you.

(\__/)
(='.'=) <A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
(")_(")

 

[dhlucke]

Instead of threatening him, why don't you just argue your points?

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not worth my time.

(\__/)
(='.'=) <A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
(")_(")

 

[K8MAN]

He doesnt understand that the cpu industry can only advance so fast and also has no concept of the law of greater diminishing returns.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK

 

[Clob]

I still dont understand where the OS comes into play with the advancement of CPU performance!

You just got PWNED by everyone in here. So pelase, do your self a a favor and take your flawed logic, ignorant reasoning, and inability to learn far way from here!

I honestly loved reading your bull [-peep-] and laughing at your limited mind and understanding. If you where not so closed-minded, you may understand a lot more!

Now since we all know that your going to reply, Please grace us with more of your ignorance! The only thing that you can say here without makeing yourself look even more stupid is somthing along the lines of an apology and full admittance of you being wrong!



<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Clob on 09/24/05 02:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>