Future of Dual Cores

P

prophetx2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
201
Maybe I'm the super odd one but, one of the great things about dual core is that I can play games AND do other things at the same time. I'm running on the 24 inch Dell LCD screen, sO i play most of my games in windowed mode. This allows me to do other things if need be. This is REALLY wonderful when I'm playing WOW. When I'm traveling on a windrider, it allows me to check my email, etc.

What I'm afraid will happen is that once all these games get optimized to use 2 cpus instead of 1, won't we be at the same cycle again? IE: everything now requires 2 cores to run optimized. So now you won't be able to play games and run your antivirus scan anymore. The gains from dual core in games won't make that much of an impact as I believe most games are GPU bound and not CPU bound.
 
There is no future for dualcores. I'm sure from 2008 onwards Intel and AMD CPUs will have moved to 4+ cores. But I know what you mean, I think you meant to say "future of multicores" :)
 
Thats an interesting thought. I'd think that there will probably be enough headroom that dual-core optimized software won't use all the CPU cycles, still leaving enough room for multiple DC-optimized applications to run without a hitch.
 
Yeah, I don't know if right off the bat dual core optimized programs are going to load balance correctly. Some threads are going to be more complicated and CPU intensive than others.
 
game developers are spending far more time on useless eye candy on then on trying to write apps that can use multicores efficently. it will be sometime before we really see games utilize them to the point where we can't do other things.
 
yeah sorry for my wording of things. This all came as a thought and I typed as much as I could without losing my concerns.

Dual core/quad core it's all going to be the same. Another thought, what happens if 1 core goes bad out of 4. Not bad in the sense it dies, although that seems possible. Say 1 core returns bunk data. How would that play in the future?
 
prophetx2 said:
yeah sorry for my wording of things. This all came as a thought and I typed as much as I could without losing my concerns.

Dual core/quad core it's all going to be the same. Another thought, what happens if 1 core goes bad out of 4. Not bad in the sense it dies, although that seems possible. Say 1 core returns bunk data. How would that play in the future?
Click to expand...

how does it play today? you get random crashes until you isolate the cause and repair it.
 
prophetx2 said:
yeah sorry for my wording of things. This all came as a thought and I typed as much as I could without losing my concerns.

Dual core/quad core it's all going to be the same. Another thought, what happens if 1 core goes bad out of 4. Not bad in the sense it dies, although that seems possible. Say 1 core returns bunk data. How would that play in the future?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that there is some hardware or software level protocal that comes into play and keeps it from bringing the system down, though perhaps your app would crash.

You have to remember that while multi-core CPUs are relatively new to the desktop, SMP has been around forever in the server/workstation/supercomputer space, so, these things have been thought out.

I am going to be interested in seeing when AMD puts some quad core CPUs on their roadmap, Intel's is already up to 8-core desktop chips by 2008
 
Steel Chicken said:
game developers are spending far more time on useless eye candy on then on trying to write apps that can use multicores efficently. it will be sometime before we really see games utilize them to the point where we can't do other things.
Click to expand...
Processor affinity ++. :)
 
What you're saying has been true since the dawn of computers. They get faster...so we load more work onto them....thereby requiring a faster machine. Repeat ad infinitum.

However, the step to multicore is a little different. No matter how much work you give the cpu, you can (theoretically, at least) have your UI thread(s) running unobstructed. So regardless of how busy the machine is, its still perfectly responsive to you.

A dual-core can't afford to give up 50% of its horsepower for that. But long-term, we'll be moving in that direction. In ten years, expect your PC to have one (at least) entire core dedicated to doing nothing whatsoever but listening to you.
 
prophetx2 said:
yeah sorry for my wording of things. This all came as a thought and I typed as much as I could without losing my concerns.

Dual core/quad core it's all going to be the same. Another thought, what happens if 1 core goes bad out of 4. Not bad in the sense it dies, although that seems possible. Say 1 core returns bunk data. How would that play in the future?
Click to expand...

now what I'd like to see is a quad core design that works like raid 1, where two cpu's process, and two check the other two to ensure they are giving out good data.
 
Chickan said:
now what I'd like to see is a quad core design that works like raid 1, where two cpu's process, and two check the other two to ensure they are giving out good data.
Click to expand...

that's what i was thinking -=) In anycase I'm familiar with smp, I actually have 3 running right now between home and my colo. With SMP if one of the CPUs go bad you still have the luxury of running only 1 CPU (replace the other whenever you feel like). With multicore processors, you only have 1 chip. Will you have to replace the entire chip if 1 core becomes damaged/faulty? I would think you could still run the cpu at half power (1 core out of 2), but this stuff is real new =)
 
Chickan said:
now what I'd like to see is a quad core design that works like raid 1, where two cpu's process, and two check the other two to ensure they are giving out good data.
Click to expand...
Some computers have been built like this, except they use three processing units. Any two have to agree for the result to be valid. The problem with your proposal (2x2) is what happens if 2 cpus disagree? Without a third arbiter, you can't choose which is right and which is wrong.
 
I can't wait to see how software takes advantage of multiple cores in the future. Atleast Win XP is aware of 2+ cores and lets you multitask accordingly, so I'm told. So multitasking seems to already be sorted out, it's just games and the majority of software (encoders etc) that's left now. I'm sure it'll be around 2010 if not later, that the majority of software is multithreaded properly. Hopefully not that late though :)

I plan on jumping from XP2400+ straight to a quad core or octa core CPU. Hopefully the home computer will long until then.
 
Considering the Xbox 360 has 3 cores, and performs similarly to a high-end single-core computer, I don't think multi-core has matured enough to fully take advantage of itself. :)
 
Bona Fide said:
Considering the Xbox 360 has 3 cores, and performs similarly to a high-end single-core computer, I don't think multi-core has matured enough to fully take advantage of itself. :)
Click to expand...

How can you even begin to compare a console to a PC? :rolleyes: :)
 
Bona Fide said:
Considering the Xbox 360 has 3 cores, and performs similarly to a high-end single-core computer, I don't think multi-core has matured enough to fully take advantage of itself. :)
Click to expand...
Well, the PS3 Cell processor is supposed to exceed over 200 GFlops performance. Try that on a single-core desktop PC.
 
perplex said:
How can you even begin to compare a console to a PC? :rolleyes: :)
Click to expand...

If you take a look at current-gen and last-gen consoles, you can see the trend towards computer-esque structuring.

Xbox: P3 800MHz, GeForce3 Ti200, 4 USB ports [remodeled to accept controllers]
Xbox 360: 3x IBM 3.2GHz, ATI Radeon X1900XT, 4 USB ports...

I'm seeing the similarities. It's not unfair to compare a console to a PC.
 
I'm seeing the similarities. It's not unfair to compare a console to a PC...
Click to expand...
Ok, lets compare. A $300 Xbox 360 has graphical and computing power equal to and in many cases better than a PC costing 3-4 times as much.

What exactly did you did have a problem with again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top