Intel's Dual-core strategy, 75% by end 2006 306
DigitumDei writes "Intel is moving ahead rapidly with their dual core chips, anticipating 75% of their chip sales to be dual core chips by the end of 2006. With AMD also starting to push their dual core solutions, how long until applications make full use of this. Some applications already make good use of multiple cpu's and of course multiple applications running at the same time instantly benifit. Yet the most cpu intensive applications for the average home machine, games, still mostly do not take advantage of this. When game manufacturers start to release games designed to take advantage of this, are we going to see a huge increase in game complexity/detail or is this benifit going to be less than Intel and AMD would have you believe?"
dual cores (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Huge increase in game complexity? In short: No (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty soon (Score:2, Insightful)
So I guess the answer to the question is, "pretty soon."
It'll be less than you think in gamin... (Score:2, Insightful)
What I hope to see, but don't expect, is better prioritization of CPU requests. If you have something high-priority going on, like a full screen video game, recording a movie or ripping a CD, I'd like to see the antivirus and other maintenance tasks handled by the other core, or even put on hold. My personal experience is that this stuff can sometimes be set up to some extent, but it's overall kind of crappy and labor intensive.
But this really isn't intel's fault. MS and the app vendors need to take the blame. So, the question is: do other OSs handle this better for consumer products?
TW
Hmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Full use? Probably never. There's always improvements to be made, and multi-threaded programs are a bitch and a half to debug, at least in Linux. Making "full use" of SMP would _generally_ decrease program reliability due to complexity, I would imagine.
But, with an SMP-aware OS (Win2k, WinXP Pro, Linux, etc.), you'll definitely see some multi-tasking benefits immediately. I think the real question is, how will Microsoft adjust their licensing with this new paradigm? Will it be per-core, or per socket/slot?
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Longhorn will support 2-way SMP even for the "Home" version.
-Erwos
All the consoles will use IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
That Is The Change In Software (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just _Dual_ (Score:2, Insightful)
Complexity/detail (Score:4, Insightful)
If you consider a factor of about 1.8 (tops) "huge".
Re:So Intel's going to be a year late ?. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fairly simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like what Subaru did when they decided to make all their vehicles All Wheel Drive. It was a great technology, but most people at the time just didn't care to pay extra for it. By making it a standard feature, the cost increase is significantly reduced, and provided that the technology is actually something functional, the market should grow to accept it.
Dual core is soooo last-year (Score:2, Insightful)
Boon for Game AI (Score:3, Insightful)
Already can take advantage it (Score:3, Insightful)
While one might ask whether it makes much useful difference to the 'average' home user, one might ask the same about say 4ghz vs 2ghz - for most Microsoft Word users this makes little difference in any case. However, for most users who really make use of CPU-power in whatever form, the dual-core will indeed make a difference even without multi-threaded applications, and it won't take long for most applications where it matters to become multi-threaded, as its really not that hard to make most cpu-intensive tasks multi-threaded and thus further improve things.
I for one am looking forward to buying my first dual-CPU, dual-core system (i.e. 4x the power) once the chips have arrived and reached reasonable price levels, and I'm sure that power won't be going to waste.
Re:Meanwhile back in PPC land (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:dual cores (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All the consoles will use IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see that Intel and AMD might want to break into that market, but they would have to create a custom chip (as a general purposed will either use too much power or won't cut it) just for that. Something I am not sure they want to do.
Re:Memory latency is the limiting factor (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on in the HyperTransport is fine. Care for a pinya-Onchipmemorycontroller?
Re:Performance plateau and functional programming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Games do take advantage of having a second cpu (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Games do take advantage of having a second cpu (Score:5, Insightful)
The CPU waiting on networking, even 1Gbits/sec, is like waiting for a raise without asking. It's so little overhead to a modern CPU that using an entire core to do it is an exercise is silliness. If you are worried about any overhead associated with network encryption, etc, you can just spend $45 on an upgraded NIC with that capability built in to its own logic. The CPU never need be bothered.
Re:One possible multi-threaded benefit (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't technically need multithreading to make the game seem responsive while its doing something.
Imagine:
Assuming that the function 'load_tiny_bit_of_map()' takes only a few dozen milliseconds, you won't notice it.
Being multithreaded makes that a bit easier, but other parts of the game may grow in complexity (depending on the game). The reason why that's not done is lazyness/lack of time/poor feedback. (I always thought there should be a minigame or something while maps load...)
Re:Games do take advantage of having a second cpu (Score:1, Insightful)
Please refrain from commenting on things that you do not understand.
I do not know anything about 17th Century Prussian architecture. Therefore I would not try and argue with somebody that did.
You know nothing about processor internals. If you had not posted, this would not be so abundantly clear.
PS. To the people that modded him up - please refrain from breathing from now on. Thanks.
Re:Dual Core Gaming (Score:1, Insightful)
If they can make the design toolkit (whatever its called) good enough that programming for the cell isnt horribly difficult, consoles will win the high performance gaming market.
Half-life 3 for PC - if its made - will run into massive bottlenecking: hard drive read speeds, processor speeds, archetecture limitations, etc. But the consoles dont have to worry about compatability with Window$ (they make their own OS-skeleton), so they can optimize everything like mad.
The only reason the PC won the top end gaming market so far, is they kept getting faster all the time, while the consoles had to keep a many-year cyclic release cycle; and became out dated. Now that the PC has hit several HEAVY bottlenecks, they dont stand a chance. Even with the 4-year release cycling of consoles, the PC will not catch up. Not in 4 years, not in 8 years, mayby not AT ALL. At leas not until some new-generation hardware compatable operating system shows up.
THe PC gaming market could be in trouble. It could even sink into "second rate", as all the FPS's migrate to consoles. On the bright side, Apple computers and Linux will look increasingly feasible.