Some Thoughts on Dual Core

[J4M3S0N79]

It hit me a few weeks ago that this whole dual core thing is really garnering a lot of attention when you look at it for what it is. It seems that we are willing to brush aside SMP as it was primarily for servers and workstations right. I am still confused how this is all that different than HT to be quite honest. So the theory was that AMD had a better and more efficient architecture right, so intel answers with HT and practially doubles the effectiveness and efficiency with the full leverage of the longer pipeline. The problem for HT of course was that most programs did not make use of the technology which is the same thing that will likely happen with dual core (though to a lesser extent). For me HT was the best processor innovation ever (including OnDie Mem controller). This is not meant as an Intel vs. AMD flame thread...I am an AMD man myself, but I also give credit where credit is due. The purpose of this post however is that I have not seen to many people touch on the obvious fact that WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING DUAL CORE FOR OVER WELL OVER A DECADE. Back when I had my first MAC (soooo great) it had a PPC at 60Mhz. It screamed with OS7 and to be honest I loved it. I even OCed it to 84mhz by changing the colck gen. That was truly screaming fast. But the kicker in this was that in certain macs (forget if mine was like this) you could add in an additional ALU (arithmetic logic unit/processor). This processor was desinged for Math intensive applications and really had a huge impact on speed. Really, what this was was the advent of Dual Core systems. With tha ALU, much of the burden was taken off of the CPU.

Now think about where we have come since then:
Hardware Modems
Hardware NICs
Hardware Sound Processors
Hardware Graphics (we have even gone dual core in this sub genre)
Hardware Vid Encoders
Hardware USB/Firewire
Hardware Disk Controllers
HARDWARE PHYSICS PROCESSORS

Now remind me again...what the HELL does our CPU even handle??!!!

All we need now is a Hardware AI processor and there will be no need for the CPU (jk)!

The point of all this is that all of these advancements have been implemented to offload the CPU burden and at one time, ALL OF THEM WERE DONE VIA THE PROGRAMMABLE x86 CPU.

See, we have been multicore for a long time and perhaps its just me, but I see little use in doubling the power of the component that is becoming less and less critical to the typical computer user. Don't get me wrong, I am due for an upgrade and the X2 will likely be in my new box but to be honest, I will probably not be blown away by the performance of the proc, it will be the rest of the above components that will have the biggest effect IMO. I distinctly recall that XP (most CPU inensive app i run) was geared for a 350mhz CPU. I had a 700 and it was very fast. Now I have a 2.4c at 4ghz and to be honest...its not that much faster. For games sure, but that is my vid card. It sounds better too, but that is cause of my sound card, the network is faster...better switch, my disks are faster...sata. Do you see where I am going with this?????

That is my $.02, let me know....am I crazy or is this just competition (Amd/intel) gone mad.

M

 

[GeForceX]

This has to be a good discussion. I have to say it really is for competition's sake but not all is lost-- Folding for example can use the entire CPU. I wish I knew more to say something meaningful.

-J.

 

[Elledan]

Now think about where we have come since then:
Hardware Modems
Hardware NICs
Hardware Sound Processors
Hardware Graphics (we have even gone dual core in this sub genre)
Hardware Vid Encoders
Hardware USB/Firewire
Hardware Disk Controllers
HARDWARE PHYSICS PROCESSORS

Now remind me again...what the HELL does our CPU even handle??!!!

Compared to, say, an original Amiga system, I'd say quite a lot. If you take away I/O-related things from the above list, only PPUs have been added, and it'll take a long, long time before it'll be a standard feature of every system out there.

A CPU is more or less an IU/FPU (integer/floating point unit) combined with many more features to move/copy data and perform all kinds of system-related tasks. This is where the name 'Central Processing Unit' comes from. If all those tasks were to be seperated, one would have one or more dedicated integer/FP units (think SSE, Altivec) in addition to an SMU (System Management Unit), or whatever.

A system following this layout would look like the hardware version of a Unix OS: small modules, each performing a well-defined, limited number of tasks.

If you think about it, the Cell processor already somewhat follows this method: it has a single CPU and a number of SPUs, which are essentially stripped down vector processors. In certain tasks (video, audio, AI, etc.), a Cell-equipped system will wipe the floor with all non-hardware based solutions.

In a sense I'm glad that the MHz race is over and CPU manufacturers are beginning to focus on innovative features again. While I don't think that Cell 'CPUs' are going to take over the world, I'd be surprised if Intel, AMD, VIA or another CPU manufacturer won't do something interesting with the concept.

 

[genmae]

Your usage model does not enable to you require a powerful CPU. You do not use your computer for cluster computing, rendering, animation, CAD, nor HPC. Your needs do not equal the world's needs, therefore, your perspective is narrow at best.

 

[J4M3S0N79]

Your usage model does not enable to you require a powerful CPU. You do not use your computer for cluster computing, rendering, animation, CAD, nor HPC. Your needs do not equal the world's needs, therefore, your perspective is narrow at best.

Good point, didn't need to word it like that but here is the thing. My computing needs are in fact, more typical of the things you mention than they are of the average user. I do a ton of gaming, some video/file compression, 3d rendering (Maya and UnrealED). Take a look at folding for example. This is an entire subculture of users (that tend to be on the enthisuast end of the spectrum) that run programs to use their SPARE cpu cycles. There is no doubt that grid computing has unlimited merit if used correctly but we are a far way from AMD/Intel selling dualcores as grid computing monsters. I still think my point is valid when it comes to the majority of users here at the OCP/Forums and I really think calling my point of view narrow was unnecessary. All I am saying is that unless you are running applications designed specifically to take advandage of the extra core...the end user experience will most likely not be that dramatic. Also keep in mind that the D series of chips is TARGETED AT THE HOME USER not the animation and render farms you speak of.....In fact (i am kinda miffed now), I think your point of view is nar......*sigh*....I give up...........No use in trying.......anymore.....
M