Multi core fad??

Multicore a fad??

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 12.8%
  • No

    Votes: 82 87.2%

  • Total voters
    94

illicitsc

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2006
697
0
18,980
0
alright its been about a year since the dualcores have arrived. and they are already talking about quad cores next year. my question is how the hell do they market that?

2 intel conroes are single core and if it's performance exceeds that of a mainstream pentium D that would be disastrous for marketing. so wat if they make a quad core.. theres bound to be a single version of it.. which will always be for the budget consumer. ie. most ppl in the world.

so wat do think bout my two cents?
 

RichPLS

Champion
Aug 24, 2004
15,886
0
50,780
0
Multi-core and dual core PC's on the desktop are the fasted chip ever available. It is no fad, it is here to stay and evolve to even more cores.
Actually, people have been using dual processor machines for AutoCAD and other graphic apps for many years, my first one was 8 years ago, and I have had a dual proc workstation every since which burned up the single CPU workstations.
 

illicitsc

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2006
697
0
18,980
0
lol wat happens when a new single solution defeats a dualcore. which is reflected in the videocard world ie.x1900xt vs 2x 7800gt
 

MadModMike

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
2,034
0
19,780
0
I think that Multi-Core in desktops will reach a plateau. In the sense that after 2 or 4 cores, there will not be a need for desktop users. In Gaming, frames per second will be determined by Graphics cards, after all the Multi-Threaded games get released, and we see extra frames in games, I don't think that after getting 100FPS on 1600x1200 w/ 16x AA and 16x AF, we will really need to have these Quad-Core 3GHz CPU's.

I know users also do CAD, 3D Rendering, Photoshop, etc. I know we need performance there (Try Maya on a 2.6GHz P4, hideous site) but those users will not be the mainstream or hardcore gaming community, IMHO. I really think that Dual-Core or Quad-Core should be the stopping point for desktop users, and they should start focusing on getting prices down, perfecting the technologies, and creating fun programs to use these with. We all know it's so fun to stare at Photoshop for 3 hours at a picture, and playing the same game with the same lame story makes us giggle like school girls.

I think the big thing that will need Multi-Core technology is Servers. Servers need all the processing power they can get, especially with databases. Of course, this also means that the Opteron transition to DDR2 with 8-Way boards, using Quad-Core 3GHz Opties in there, 32 3GHz Optys....oh that's a devilish thought. That's my 2 cents.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
 

hergieburbur

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
1,907
0
19,780
0
lol wat happens when a new single solution defeats a dualcore. which is reflected in the videocard world ie.x1900xt vs 2x 7800gt
That is a lot less likely to happen with CPUs in the future, as software becomes more and more optimized for multiple threads running on multiple cores.

There is a reason why Sun Servers and indeed most high end servers and workstations have run multiple Processors for years. Putting more cores on one chip makes more sense though, since it saves on pagaing costs and improves inter-chip communications.

I a few years, I think Single cores will be a thing of the past. This is pretty much inevitable, since the level of complexity that software is reaching demands multiple threads to run concurrently.
 

RichPLS

Champion
Aug 24, 2004
15,886
0
50,780
0
I don't think anytime in the next 6 to 8 years single cores will go away...
But like they are happening now, they will form the base for the budget and internet machines, being best for one task at a time.
The mainstream, gaming enthusiasts and high end will demand dual and quad cores.
 

nobly

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2005
854
0
18,980
0
Its not a fad.

I think the only way single cores will go away is that the manufacturing tech would do away w/ them because of the relative smaller yield.
Why get rid of a product that will sell if you can still produce it?

We just haven't even realized that software is still mostly single threaded. Companies are making the transition, but don't expect multi thread support to appear until the next version or the one after that.

The only way I can see myself using a quad core is for video rendering.

But really, 2007 quad cores will be for servers, not desktops. I'm not gonna shell out for a quad. It'll probably be insanely expensive and so will the motherboard.
 

RichPLS

Champion
Aug 24, 2004
15,886
0
50,780
0
Some games that have dual core support...

Call of Duty 2
City of Villains, by NCSoft
F.E.A.R., by Vivendi
World of Warcraft
Age of Empires III
Black & White 2
Peter Jackson’s King Kong
The Movies
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland
Quake 4
Quake 5 (when released)
Vangauard Saga of Heros

Probably every game released in 2006 and on will support dual core to some extent.

and I believe quite a bunch more are supported or fixing to get support via patch... so the list is growing, and any popular game in the planning is sure to have dual-core support.

Not to mention ATI's and nVidia's graphic drivers are multi-threaded giving an additional boost to dual core performance.

If you run anti-virus or software firewalls as a service, this is not an impact on speed, since they are multi-threaded and benifit from dual core also...

this is good news to dual core buyers and fluid-like gaming.

As far as commercial apps, they have had threading for many years. WindowsNT 4, WindowsNT 2000, WinXP, AutoCad, Photodraw, Video encoders, etc.
 

MU_Engineer

Splendid
Moderator
I totally agree with you. Unless you run a computer than does nothing but crunch numbers, encode video, or run a bunch of virtualized OSes all day long (then the more cores the merrier!), there is a steep dropoff in performance gains per additional core once you pass 2 or four cores.

I would not buy a new computer with a single-core CPU, but I'd rather get a fast dual-core than a slower quad-core machine for general usage. You have that second core to help you along when there are lots of threads hogging CPU time, but for the most part, a fast CPU gives you the best performance.
 

WINDSHEAR

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2006
626
0
18,980
0
it's not a fad... there are definite performance gains... in multiple cores. The more the merrier :p just consider this, is a single core 3.2Ghz gonna be faster than a 3.2Ghz dual core? I think that the dual core would be faster 8)
 

hergieburbur

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
1,907
0
19,780
0
The real question is: would a 3.0GHz dual-core or a 2.4GHz quad-core be faster? I think I can say offhand what will win 90% of the non-synthetic benchmarks.
Are you talking about Single threaded or multi-threaded apps? and in a single program or overall multi tasking? The answer will differ depending on your answers.
 
alright its been about a year since the dualcores have arrived. and they are already talking about quad cores next year. my question is how the hell do they market that?

2 intel conroes are single core and if it's performance exceeds that of a mainstream pentium D that would be disastrous for marketing. so wat if they make a quad core.. theres bound to be a single version of it.. which will always be for the budget consumer. ie. most ppl in the world.

so wat do think bout my two cents?
conroe is here to replace the P4 - the 65nm P4's are just a filler and an extremely overclockable one at that.

i had a dual celeron system (2x466) and in xp it felt like a P3 800

dual cpu is alright, quad is going too far i think (but on the other hand I have no use but others might)

quad core is more for servers and high performance workstations - cheaper to make a one socket motherboard supporting 4 cores, and high end servers with 4 sockets can then have 16 cores total etc.
 

illicitsc

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2006
697
0
18,980
0
ok guys i think u kinda misinterpreted me. i meanted dual cores as opposed to the current generation of processors. say even the new single core conroes destoryed the x2s and PDs then wat will happen???
 

scoobertscoobydoo

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
238
0
18,680
0
Some games that have dual core support...

Call of Duty 2
City of Villains, by NCSoft
F.E.A.R., by Vivendi
World of Warcraft
Age of Empires III
Black & White 2
Peter Jackson’s King Kong
The Movies
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland
Quake 4
Quake 5 (when released)
Vangauard Saga of Heros

.
your list is SO far off.
battlefeild 2 does not use dual core.

the good news is that the nvidia drivers use the second core and you can pull a few more frames with a dual core.
 

chuckshissle

Splendid
Feb 2, 2006
4,579
0
22,780
0
I'm pretty sure that cpu manufacturer is going to target the average consumer. So sometime in the future there will be a budget and high end multicore processors. That or they could find a way to manufacture cpu at cheaper cost.
 

MU_Engineer

Splendid
Moderator
I am talking about application benchmarks, which are the most useful ones, IMO. Very little is multithreaded all the way out to four threads, so for the most part, the extra two cores will sit idle.

Synthetic benchies may say differently, but those also have the P4 killing the Athlon 64 in about every single one, and we all know which one is generally faster in real life.
 

rodney_ws

Splendid
Dec 29, 2005
3,819
0
22,810
17
RichPLS said:
Some games that have dual core support...

Call of Duty 2
City of Villains, by NCSoft
F.E.A.R., by Vivendi
World of Warcraft
Age of Empires III
Black & White 2
Peter Jackson’s King Kong
The Movies
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland
Quake 4
Quake 5 (when released)
Vangauard Saga of Heros

quote]

Do ALL of these games REALLY support dual-core CPUs?
 

russki

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
548
0
18,980
0
Time and time again, I get amazed at how easily poeple make arguments based on the broadest statements out there on these boards.

First of all, what is all this talk about "destroying?!" What kind of benches are we talking here? A single-threaded Quake 3. Then the answer is "yes, go single core."

In order for multi-core processors to shine in application (vs. multi-tasking) performance, you need to have threaded applications. That transition (from single-threaded applications to multi-threaded) will determine the success of multi-cores. And it seems that this transition is well under way.

And as long as people can make four threaded applications, those will perform better on a quad-core than a dual core for obvious reasons. It's a different way of thinking, yes, and a different way of programming (that, among other things, makes for a somewhat difficult transition for developers). But once everybody adapts this new way (and again, like it or not, it appears that it's just a matter of time), multi-cores will stay and, like someone said, multiply.

The fact that some single cores outperform dual cores, is very simply attributable to 1) running of single threaded applications that are poorly suited to utilize all capabilities of a multi-core platform, and 2) the fact that due to power (and thermal) constraints, it is easier to package faster single cores on a chip when compared with multiple cores on the same package.

In terms of X1900 vs. 7800 SLI it is just a silly comparison. You are comparing different generations of processors, not to mention two different architectures. Your argument just does not make any sense. A more valid comparison would be 7800 GT SLI vs. 7800 GTX, or something. Even thought SLI is vastly different from multi-core...
 

WINDSHEAR

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2006
626
0
18,980
0
I am talking about application benchmarks, which are the most useful ones, IMO. Very little is multithreaded all the way out to four threads, so for the most part, the extra two cores will sit idle.

Synthetic benchies may say differently, but those also have the P4 killing the Athlon 64 in about every single one, and we all know which one is generally faster in real life.
P4 3.0Ghz with HT is definitely faster and far more responsive than even a 3200... it's a whole lot snappier.
 

ivoryjohn

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2001
174
0
18,680
0
"If you build it, they will come"

Anyone trying to claim that additional cores provide a diminishing return are neglecting the fact that they are using non-threaded apps to support their theories. As more cores are made available, more processes will find ways to use them. I have never seen a case where one of my cores was kept really busy while the other remained idle. The only times I have found both cores pegged was when a single app was misbehaving.

Video chips use multiple cores to process 3d. Pipes and shaders are all examples of how parallel can improve throughput. SLI and crossfire are further examples.

IBM put multiple helper cores on the CELL processor. Intels HyperThreading was similar to the helper cores. Ultimately, as the two main cpu designers try to find ways to make their chips outperform the competitors, the only things they can do is make them smaller, and make them more parallel. I think that we will eventually have more smaller helper cores like the CELL.

And as more cores land on our desktops, more programs (including games) will find uses for them. Physics modelling, natural language, AI, etc.
 

ak47is1337

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
1,830
0
19,780
0
Multicoring is NOT a fad. However, right now it pretty much sucks for gaming, considering the only truly multithreaded game is Quake4. When moving from the venice 2.8 to my friend's denmark 165 2.7 i have to say performance actually dropped on games (I didn't try Quake4, but FPS in FEAR/HL2 dropped)! I was extremely disappointed at this, and it shows how much effort will need to be put into development of optimized apps (amd64 anyone?) However, if you have 4 cores running at a 1ghz each, it should be able to crush a 3ghz cpu in a multithreaded app...in theory, that is.
 

hergieburbur

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2005
1,907
0
19,780
0
I am talking about application benchmarks, which are the most useful ones, IMO. Very little is multithreaded all the way out to four threads, so for the most part, the extra two cores will sit idle.

Synthetic benchies may say differently, but those also have the P4 killing the Athlon 64 in about every single one, and we all know which one is generally faster in real life.
You are completely right At The Moment. Same as with 64 bit Processers. However, in the future, which determines Fad status, there will be more software that supports both multi-core (two, four, however many) and 64 bit processing than there is today. And, whether you go to 2 cores or four, they are still multi-cores.

Oracle is a non-synthetic app that is living prffo af that. I know it is a server app and nobody runs it at home, I am just making the point that you can find software to prove any point you want.

The right statistician can find numbers to prove any point he wants to make.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY