"10,000 cores will not speed up a single threaded app"

[tooltime]

Inquirer article

but i still want my x2 4800

 

[Geomagick]

Two cores is probably the limit of what is really useful on the desktop at the moment. Getting an X2 over a 'normal' 64 probably makes sense to most high performance users.

Although it is a pretty lame article it is a good point. The only thing I could think of using 10,000 cores for at the moment is BOINC, now that would be interesting.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: George Powell
Two cores is probably the limit of what is really useful on the desktop at the moment. Getting an X2 over a 'normal' 64 probably makes sense to most high performance users.

Although it is a pretty lame article it is a good point. The only thing I could think of using 10,000 cores for at the moment is BOINC, now that would be interesting.

F@H>BIONIC

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: George Powell
Two cores is probably the limit of what is really useful on the desktop at the moment. Getting an X2 over a 'normal' 64 probably makes sense to most high performance users.

Although it is a pretty lame article it is a good point. The only thing I could think of using 10,000 cores for at the moment is BOINC, now that would be interesting.

F@H>BIONIC

(F@H, BOINC, FAD, etc.) >>>>>> nothing

Except for very specialized scientific applications, I think that even the average enthusiast user here would have a very hard time keeping a quad CPU system occupied for the majority of the time (excluding DC projects). I'm not saying that I wouldn't love having one, but for my usage patterns, it would speed things up a single bit.

 

[Zenoth]

When will we have systems equipped with an optimized neural interface linked to brain cells ?

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
When will we have systems equipped with an optimized neural interface linked to brain cells ?

When you invent one.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Inquirer gets the Captain obvious rule

 

[sonoma1993]

when will we have a processor like the ones used for the terminator in termintor, terminator 2?

 

[mikester]

I wonder if AMD/Intel have considered multi-core processors with maybe 2 full power cores, plus a couple of less powerful cores to dedicate to things like your firewall or antivirus software. I agree it would be difficult for the average desktop user to utilize 4 high-speed cores, but give me 2 good cores and a couple smaller ones (like maybe 1 GHz each) so that Norton Internet Security doesn't drag my system down as much, and I would be a happy camper.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: mikester
I wonder if AMD/Intel have considered multi-core processors with maybe 2 full power cores, plus a couple of less powerful cores to dedicate to things like your firewall or antivirus software. I agree it would be difficult for the average desktop user to utilize 4 high-speed cores, but give me 2 good cores and a couple smaller ones (like maybe 1 GHz each) so that Norton Internet Security doesn't drag my system down as much, and I would be a happy camper.

LOL

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: mikester
I wonder if AMD/Intel have considered multi-core processors with maybe 2 full power cores, plus a couple of less powerful cores to dedicate to things like your firewall or antivirus software. I agree it would be difficult for the average desktop user to utilize 4 high-speed cores, but give me 2 good cores and a couple smaller ones (like maybe 1 GHz each) so that Norton Internet Security doesn't drag my system down as much, and I would be a happy camper.

LOL

Sounds like a decent idea to be honest. Id like 1 strong core for gaming and 1-2 smaller cores to handle minor tasks such as Anti-Virus/Spyware active or passive scanning, open apps, encoding etc.

Its probably not a realistic idea to be implemented but it is nice for those who only need the 1 powerful core and a small supplimentry core to take the secondary tasks away from the main core.

EDIT: Also considering that the market is moving towards multi-threaded applications, the 1 strong, 2 weaker core idea wouldnt be very useful in the longrun.

 

[redhatlinux]

I don't entirely agree with the premise. If you can affinity the operating system to one core and other low priortity apps, and keep your mega single threaded app in the other core, without OS interference then you will still gain. OS overheand can be quite a bit. Mixing processor speeds is simply a pain considering common memory access.

 

[Markbnj]

Ok, so open up Task Manager, set it to show thread count for each process, and then find out how many single threaded apps are running on your system.

Then you'll know how useful this article was.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Elcs

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: mikester
I wonder if AMD/Intel have considered multi-core processors with maybe 2 full power cores, plus a couple of less powerful cores to dedicate to things like your firewall or antivirus software. I agree it would be difficult for the average desktop user to utilize 4 high-speed cores, but give me 2 good cores and a couple smaller ones (like maybe 1 GHz each) so that Norton Internet Security doesn't drag my system down as much, and I would be a happy camper.

LOL

Sounds like a decent idea to be honest. Id like 1 strong core for gaming and 1-2 smaller cores to handle minor tasks such as Anti-Virus/Spyware active or passive scanning, open apps, encoding etc.

Its probably not a realistic idea to be implemented but it is nice for those who only need the 1 powerful core and a small supplimentry core to take the secondary tasks away from the main core.

EDIT: Also considering that the market is moving towards multi-threaded applications, the 1 strong, 2 weaker core idea wouldnt be very useful in the longrun.

nah, it most likely won't be any cheaper than full power cores, mabye even more expensive. too much R&D. its just not very realistic.

 

[LTC8K6]

Everyone is running lots of threads all the time, so the article seems a bit silly.

Markbnj already said this....

 

[TomKazansky]

how about they just throw us the cache and we set however many cores we need? it would be the best solution if possible.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Ok, so open up Task Manager, set it to show thread count for each process, and then find out how many single threaded apps are running on your system.

Then you'll know how useful this article was.

You should show the CPU Time for each of these processes and compare it to the System Idle time. Just because an app is threaded doesn't mean all of those threads are CPU intensive. Most just sleep in the background and wake up intermittently and only do work for a short period of time.

 

[Hacp]

Lol what about multi core is the future? Future games will take advantage of it, etc? In reality, single core is what Most people really need, unless they have some multi-threaded application they reguarly use.

 

[Maximilian]

Yep, 10000 cores sure wont make apps faster. So what will? Theyve kinda hit a roof with the whole mhz thing for the most part. We need some sorta new type of CPU, not just a new architechture, a totally new type of CPU!! Like going from horse power to steam, somthing radically different.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

i can tell u what u get for the extra 200$
u make AMD rich, which is good u kick Intels a§§ which is even better, u send a message to programmers that ur willing to buy their new multithreaded versions with the flashy mulltithreaded sticker on it, u get a great ocer, they deliver enough performance for all u want to do with a comp, and they will be still good power horses in 3-4 years.
200$ bucks, cmon whats the deal.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: mikester
I wonder if AMD/Intel have considered multi-core processors with maybe 2 full power cores, plus a couple of less powerful cores to dedicate to things like your firewall or antivirus software. I agree it would be difficult for the average desktop user to utilize 4 high-speed cores, but give me 2 good cores and a couple smaller ones (like maybe 1 GHz each) so that Norton Internet Security doesn't drag my system down as much, and I would be a happy camper.

Check out the Cell architecture. That's sort of what they have. One main processor, and 8 vector-processing units, per Cell. Funky eh?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: mikester
I wonder if AMD/Intel have considered multi-core processors with maybe 2 full power cores, plus a couple of less powerful cores to dedicate to things like your firewall or antivirus software. I agree it would be difficult for the average desktop user to utilize 4 high-speed cores, but give me 2 good cores and a couple smaller ones (like maybe 1 GHz each) so that Norton Internet Security doesn't drag my system down as much, and I would be a happy camper.

Check out the Cell architecture. That's sort of what they have. One main processor, and 8 vector-processing units, per Cell. Funky eh?

Not when you only have one main processor, and the vector processing units, myabe not as useful as one might think without specialised coding, and if you're doing specialised coding, you might as well make it multi threaded.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Not when you only have one main processor, and the vector processing units, myabe not as useful as one might think without specialised coding, and if you're doing specialised coding, you might as well make it multi threaded.

I personally don't like Cell much, but the fellow I quoted was essentially asking for something similar to Cell. Granted, Cell's vector units aren't useful as general-purpose cores.

 

[Bull Dog]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Lol what about multi core is the future? Future games will take advantage of it, etc? In reality, single core is what Most people really need, unless they have some multi-threaded application they reguarly use.

Hacp I'm really starting to get sick of your (nobody needs a dual core processor) attitude.

I can personally attest (like MANY other people here) to the benifits of a dual core processor. And I went from a 3500+ to the X2 4400+.

 

[Markbnj]

[You should show the CPU Time for each of these processes and compare it to the System Idle time. Just because an app is threaded doesn't mean all of those threads are CPU intensive]

That's not as relevant as you think. The key metric is not how much of the CPU capacity is being used over time, but how often more than one thread needs to execute _at the same time_. This happens very often in Windows, and whenever it does, you slow down.