Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)
MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
> In article <d9mjeo022up@news2.newsguy.com>,
> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Cameron Ward wrote:
>>
>>> There is no hype to dual processors!!!!! sure for running one
>>> application you don`t see that much improvment, but the whole point is
>>> that you can have two processors doing two completely different things
>>> with half the lag to your pc.... dual processors aren`t speed boosts
>>> they are performance boosts.
>>
>>IF you have two CPU-bound tasks to be performed. Most users rarely have
>>_one_ CPU-bound task.
>
> The software engineering community is starting to acknowledge the gap.
> With single CPU performance doubling every 18 months, there was relatively
> little need to think about writing individual applications that are
> multi-threaded. These days, with single CPU performance growth slowing
> and chip vendors going multi-core, people are starting to say things like
> this:
>
> http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
>
> 30 years from now, single CPU machines might seem as quaint and niche as
> mainframes and discrete transistors do today.
You do grasp the concept of "CPU-Bound" do you not? If the CPU is spending
most of its time waiting for user input, which is the case for most
end-user applications of interest to consumers, then having two or ten or a
billion CPUs waiting isn't bringing anything to the party. If the
performance is limited by CPU performance (that is what "CPU-bound" means),
which it seldom is (the only tasks other than games that I can think of
that have any mass appeal would be video renders), _and_ if the task is
amenable to parallel processing (all tasks are not), _then_ duals will get
a workout.
This is nothing new--they were teaching concurrent programming in the
standard computer science curriculum 20 years ago, and the second computer
I ever worked with back in the late '70s had IIRC 24 processors.
> -Mike
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
MSCHAEF.COM wrote:
> In article <d9mjeo022up@news2.newsguy.com>,
> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Cameron Ward wrote:
>>
>>> There is no hype to dual processors!!!!! sure for running one
>>> application you don`t see that much improvment, but the whole point is
>>> that you can have two processors doing two completely different things
>>> with half the lag to your pc.... dual processors aren`t speed boosts
>>> they are performance boosts.
>>
>>IF you have two CPU-bound tasks to be performed. Most users rarely have
>>_one_ CPU-bound task.
>
> The software engineering community is starting to acknowledge the gap.
> With single CPU performance doubling every 18 months, there was relatively
> little need to think about writing individual applications that are
> multi-threaded. These days, with single CPU performance growth slowing
> and chip vendors going multi-core, people are starting to say things like
> this:
>
> http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm
>
> 30 years from now, single CPU machines might seem as quaint and niche as
> mainframes and discrete transistors do today.
You do grasp the concept of "CPU-Bound" do you not? If the CPU is spending
most of its time waiting for user input, which is the case for most
end-user applications of interest to consumers, then having two or ten or a
billion CPUs waiting isn't bringing anything to the party. If the
performance is limited by CPU performance (that is what "CPU-bound" means),
which it seldom is (the only tasks other than games that I can think of
that have any mass appeal would be video renders), _and_ if the task is
amenable to parallel processing (all tasks are not), _then_ duals will get
a workout.
This is nothing new--they were teaching concurrent programming in the
standard computer science curriculum 20 years ago, and the second computer
I ever worked with back in the late '70s had IIRC 24 processors.
> -Mike
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram