backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by Eletriarnation.. on Feb 2 at 7:01 PM

Line maturity yields 3.5GHz

While a lot of consumers have chosen quad-core CPUs from both Intel and AMD, the majority of the market has still chosen to go with dual-core CPUs.

Many programs still don't take full advantage of multiple cores. Those that are, are only optimized for two logical processors.

Additionally, many gamers who don't overclock seek the fastest dual-core CPUs, as they will see faster frame rates if they are CPU limited. Generally, having more cores limits how fast you can clock your processors. If the game doesn't take advantage of quad-Core, then a dual-core solution makes more sense.

Adding more cores also increases the cost significantly. For most, the Core 2 Duo is a cost effective solution that provides high-performance, meeting the definition of value.

Intel first launched its P1266 45nm process back in 2007, although mass market availability took a few months. During the ramp-up, the production line is optimized to maximize yields and minimize the number of defects in final products.

During the Assembly and Test stage, Intel uses a process called binning, where CPUs are tested and sorted based on several criteria. This is how we get a series of CPUs that are essentially the same, but ranges from 2.66 GHz to 3.5 Ghz.

DailyTech has found information on Intel's latest CPU. It is the Core 2 Duo E8700 running at 3.5 GHz, making it their highest clocked Core 2 Duo to date. It has a Front Side Bus operating at 1333 MHz, 6 MB of cache, and a TDP (Thermal Design Power) of 65 W.

There is currently no price information available. However, it is likely that when it does officially launch, Intel will lower its prices on the rest of the Core 2 Duo line.

Launching a higher clocked product is a sign of strength in manufacturing, indicating line maturity and expertise. It is, unfortunately, something that Intel's competitors have been unable to match.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I like it
By judasmachine on 1/27/2009 10:38:38 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for letting me keep my older system a little longer intel. Now don't charge an arm and a leg for it. No way I'd spring for a i7 system now. Let Wolfdale have one last hurrah. Well it is 775, right?




RE: I like it
By judasmachine on 1/27/2009 10:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
BTW I'm still pumping away on my e7200.


RE: I like it
By fezzik1620 on 1/27/2009 11:49:35 AM , Rating: 1
aren't we all


RE: I like it
By quiksilvr on 1/27/2009 2:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's what she said.


RE: I like it
By kmmatney on 1/27/2009 11:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still good with my E4400 running at 3.0 Ghz. Plenty fast for now.


RE: I like it
By Samus on 1/28/2009 3:27:55 PM , Rating: 1
I still have the original E6300 overclocked to 2.93GHz. Never crashed once, and still as fast as the majority of chips out there when you take into account 1650MHz FSB. I'm glad to see Intel finally making decent shit (I never bothered owning a P4) but I also miss the underdog.


RE: I like it
By Eletriarnation on 2/2/2009 7:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
See, I waited four and a half years to upgrade my old P4 3.0C... to a Core i7 920!


RE: I like it
By B3an on 1/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: I like it
By judasmachine on 1/28/2009 10:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
yeah i think i got a bum chip with a stuck thermosensor, and gets fishy above 3.2GHz.


Cool
By clovell on 1/27/2009 11:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
I like this. I think the driving factor here is that AMD has stepped up - not in terms of the bleeding edge, but in terms of price / performance. Just look at the disparity between Intel's Extreme Editions and AMD's Black Editions.

A 3.5 GHz C2D sku along with a price drop is going to keep Intel very competitive in the price / performance / budget builder sector.




RE: Cool
By Reclaimer77 on 1/27/2009 6:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just look at the disparity between Intel's Extreme Editions and AMD's Black Editions.


Whoa whoa WHOA. In NO way, shape, or form can you compare those two.

I personally wouldn't pay a grand for a CPU, but the Extreme Editions are pretty freaking awesome. And absolutely blow away any AMD black edition.


Well
By xxsk8er101xx on 1/27/2009 12:28:13 PM , Rating: 1
i still have my quad core 2.83ghz and it works fine for me.




RE: Well
By Souka on 1/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By Aerosmithe on 1/27/2009 11:02:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My CPU is a 3.0GHz running at 3.8Ghz air cooled...


Ha, you with your newfangled technology. Me and my 2.6GHz P4 are doing quite well with our loud fan and old copper heatsink. (running 3.6) Pfah! Course, I always was the drive it until it falls apart kind of guy.


By Some1ne on 1/27/2009 3:56:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Many programs still don't take full advantage of multiple cores. Those that are, are only optimized for two logical processors.


That's quite a generalization you've got there. Many applications are optimized to take advantage of more than two processing cores. This is especially true of server-side software, but can be seen in many desktop apps, especially in video/audio encoding/editing software.

To assert that no program has been optimized for >2 cores is simply incorrect.




c2d or c2Quad?
By salimbest83 on 1/27/09, Rating: 0
Pointless
By Bateluer on 1/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Pointless
By JKflipflop98 on 1/27/2009 9:03:13 AM , Rating: 5
Hell ya! Who the hell needs more than 512k of ram anyways? Anything more is just sloppy coding.


RE: Pointless
By Spectator on 1/27/2009 3:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
Smile.

If all the standard benchmarks were 4+ cores. All the sheep would follow.

Intel/Amd are dropping the ball because they cant have some loner produce a 4+ core benching program they/we all know about.

Its only natural we believe in others. sht that is how religion works after all. :P


RE: Pointless
By dani31 on 1/27/2009 9:09:10 AM , Rating: 3
It is indeed pointless when you have a 3.16 C2D lol. Or maybe even a little frustrating? LOL

On topic: 3.5GHz with 65W looks f* great to me. Pity that the FSB is dead.


RE: Pointless
By ceefka on 1/27/2009 9:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather heard they are going to launch i5


RE: Pointless
By RU482 on 1/27/2009 12:05:49 PM , Rating: 1
what, is Intel affiliated with Mazda now?


RE: Pointless
By ram2000 on 1/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Pointless
By Hulk on 1/27/2009 9:18:52 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah 3.5 in actual applications isn't that much faster than 3.0. And 3.0 isn't much of an upgrade over 2.66. And 2.66 isn't much of an upgrade over 2.133.

So by the transitive property 3.5 isn't that much faster than 2.166.

But wait, it IS much faster.

Incremental upgrades are the name of the game.


RE: Pointless
By omnicronx on 1/27/2009 9:48:41 AM , Rating: 1
I fully agree, and what I think people are getting caught up in the old MHZ race when this time around, things are very different. This is not netburst technology in which higher clockspeeds are needed as a result of a somewhat inefficient cpu. This time around Intel has a powerful yet efficient cpu design, and they are pushing clockspeeds as a result of their great production lines, not because they have to in order to compete.


RE: Pointless
By luseferous on 1/27/2009 9:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
Pointless ? Why ?
Was it pointless to go from an IBM XT/AT to a 286 or to a 386 or a 486 ? Since when has a faster processor or a faster version of a processor been pointless. The point of a computer is to compute. The faster it can compute the better.

I suppose if AMD had brought out a 3.5Ghz Phenom it would also be pointles or would it be 'wow AMD roxxors' ?


RE: Pointless
By MrDiSante on 1/27/2009 9:21:36 AM , Rating: 5
All other things being equal 3.5GHz is indeed a good deal faster than 3GHz, and all other things in this case are indeed equal. Yeah, your average video game is probably GPU bound, yeah you only have so much memory bandwidth, but as far a CPU-intensive tasks go, this thing is going to be 1.17x as fast as a 3GHz penryn.

That being said, if you try to overclock this and the 3.16 GHz model, I doubt you'll get any further. They're probably just taking advantage of the headroom they already have.


RE: Pointless
By Forsaken503 on 1/27/2009 9:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, your right, speed means nothing. We all know a 1 MHZ quad core is faster than a 3.5Ghz dual core.

For me, if I was planning on building a new system, I would consider this option. Most of the applications I use aren't optimized for a quad core, and therefore a higher clocked dual core will perform better. Also, I overclock and have a C2D that won't reach 3.5ghz on a 1333 FSB, so having a chip that's guarenteed to do that is a bonus right out of the box. I wonder how well this chip will OC?


RE: Pointless
By Bateluer on 1/27/2009 11:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not necessarily replying to you directly, this was just a convenient spot to hit reply.

A lot of responses to my initial post seem to be misunderstanding me. For the user who already has an E2180, for example, the Dell special, that PC is already more than powerful enough for what they need it to do. Lets face it, you don't need a 3.5Ghz C2D to surf the net, check email, and accomplish basic productivity applications, which describes the use for 99% of people. Most of the chips in Intel's product line are overkill for this.

Without a doubt, the chip targets the enthusiast market. And most enthusiasts likely already have CPUs that are either equal to or faster through overclocking. Sure, if you're building a new system, it might be viable, depending on the price. Is it worth it for me to upgrade my 3.16Ghz C2D to this? No. Is it worth it to upgrade to this if you have a 3Ghz C2Q, probably not.

Do not misunderstand me, I'm all for pushing the envelop of processing power. The problem now is that software hasn't caught up. Today's CPUs are insanely powerful, and even an Athlon 64 X2 3800 is more than enough for most home users. Software needs some time to catch up too.

There's also the recession, Intel's sales were down something like 40% this last quarter, and most tech companies are reporting excess inventory because people just aren't buying. They're looking at their machines, which are already fast, and asking themselves if they really need that slight boost in speed.

Intel would be better served making the already efficiently produced C2D line even more efficient to produce and cheaper for the consumer. They should also accomplish the same goals with the i7. As another user mentioned, when the hardware was cheap and they were safely employed, they were upgrading every 6 to 9 months. Today, people just aren't doing that. Intel introducing faster CPUs when they are sitting hundreds of millions of dollars in unsold inventory is a pointless waste.


RE: Pointless
By StevoLincolnite on 1/27/2009 11:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem now is that software hasn't caught up. Today's CPUs are insanely powerful, and even an Athlon 64 X2 3800 is more than enough for most home users. Software needs some time to catch up too.


Well to be even more blunt, Most people don't need anything more than a mid-ranged Pentium 3 with a decent amount of Ram to be happily running with Office 2007, Internet and Email, Throw in something like a Geforce 4 MX440 and it can handle all those Popcap and Gamehours games comfortably. (Like Bejeweled etc).

I built my Granny a Pentium 3 Katmai running at 500mhz, threw in 512mb of SD Ram and a cheap Geforce 4 MX420 card and she has been loving it for years, I recently upgraded it to an Athlon XP 2000+ and 2gb of DDR Ram and a Radeon 9500 Pro running at 9700 speeds, so I could do some gaming on it. (Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004, Oblivion, Need for Speed Most Wanted etc).

She doesn't even notice the difference in speed really when doing her basic usual thing.

I've actually noticed that family's are hanging onto there Pentium 4's and Athlon XP's for longer and longer because they are ample enough for everything they require, and when they break down they usually get a friend who is capable of fixing the machine for something like only $20. (I do it rather often for various friends), and if they do buy a new machine it's a cheap machine with a Pentium 2180 or something.


RE: Pointless
By ICE1966 on 1/27/2009 12:58:08 PM , Rating: 1
its nice to see the cpu makers releasing improved products, but whats the need. Most people do not need that kind of cpu speed for eveyday task. gamers are a different story, but most average people don't game on thier computer. I recently upgraded my cpu to an AMD X2 6000+, which I bought for $70, and its a retail version. dropped right into to my motherboard. I upgraded from an AMD X2 5000+. that was a very fairly priced upgrade considering that my 5000+ cost over $110 when I bought it.


RE: Pointless
By initialised on 1/27/2009 6:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen E8600's get close to 5GHz on a decent water cooling system, & 4GHz on good air cooling. All depends what FSB your motherboard and RAM can handle. On a decent x38, x48, P45, 780i or 790i motherboard these chips should reach 4.4GHz (400x11 or 444x10 or 425x10.5) with relative ease and should be able to push 5GHz if you get a good one and pair it with decent cooling.


RE: Pointless
By Truxy on 1/27/2009 9:31:38 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah! Intel, stop improving your products! I don't care how fast you can design these to run, I'm fine with the past.

Really... all this means for the average person is that any C2D less than 3.5ghz will be slightly cheaper. So relax.


RE: Pointless
By Suomynona on 1/27/2009 9:38:01 AM , Rating: 2
GHz only means "nothing" when you're comparing two different CPU architectures. Otherwise, it should scale almost linearly, depending on the task...


RE: Pointless
By omnicronx on 1/27/2009 9:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
This is not correct, rarely do CPU's scale linearly. The Phenom is the perfect example of this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-athlon-...

How well a processor will scale as you increase the speed is all in the design, and is anything but linear.


RE: Pointless
By MBlueD on 1/27/2009 9:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
But it is much faster than my current 2.66ghz C2D.


RE: Pointless
By Spivonious on 1/27/2009 9:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
Go E6600!! :P


RE: Pointless
By Screwballl on 1/27/2009 1:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
I am still running with my E6600, OC'd to 2.8GHz... been thinking when the prices drop, may jump on an E8400 which should work well with my P35 board.


RE: Pointless
By FITCamaro on 1/27/2009 3:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
E6600 was 2.4 GHz.


RE: Pointless
By Spivonious on 1/27/2009 3:52:04 PM , Rating: 1
D'oh! You're right. I should know too, since I own one.

2.66 was E6700?


RE: Pointless
By AntiM on 1/27/2009 9:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
For someone looking to build, or buy a *new* machine, this would obviously be a good processor choice. If it's priced below $250, it would be very attractive for a new build.
I agree that the need for a quad core just isn't here yet, and the Athlon X2 is still a very good bang for the buck.

I'm curious to see what AMDs 45 nm dual cores will do.


RE: Pointless
By AmazighQ on 1/27/2009 9:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
only thing you will get is a price drop for the lower ghz chips
and that is a good thing
i got a e7200 @3,2 ghz 400*8 at stock (1.2)vcore
so my 1066 fbs cpu is running at 1600 fbs
i can go to 3.5 with 411*8.5 at 1.3 vcore

learn how to overlock will safe you alot of money!


RE: Pointless
By Aloonatic on 1/27/2009 9:56:41 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree.

I'm using my Northwood 2.53GHz P4 with 1 GB of DDR RAM and I'm not really tempted.

Less than 1 GHz is barely an increase and DDR3 is a difference of what? 2 DDRs? That's rubbish.

/joking

These sorts of speed bumps have been happening since forever and aren't really aimed at people upgrading from a similar generation processor but I may be tempted.

I agree with you that the majority of non game playing, e-mailing, facebooking users won't noticeably benefit from upgrading to this from a processor that is a year or so old, but then that's been more or less true for a long time also. It's just a bit more true now than it has been in the past. The amount of power needed and most importantly probably needed in the near future is cheaply available now and has been for a year or so, as you point out.

I've really been using the PC above for the last 6 or 7 years and whilst it can take a little time (ohh, a second or so extra) I get by. Then again, I'm happy to leave it chugging away passing through an mkv file or converting a video to play on my PS3 whilst having a cup of tea or watching TV but I'm from a generation who was used to setting a game loading and going downstairs to have my dinner before going back to my bedroom to find that it had either loaded or had some error and the whole process had to be started again.


RE: Pointless
By luseferous on 1/27/2009 10:37:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'm from a generation who was used to setting a game loading and going downstairs to have my dinner before going back to my bedroom to find that it had either loaded or had some error and the whole process had to be started again.


Ah happy days, Spending 10 mins loading a game only to find that the cassette volume was a little too high or a little low and then having to start over after being presented with a load error. :)


RE: Pointless
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 11:09:14 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think you see the bigger picture. Nobody is compelling you to upgrade from your 3.2GHz CPU to a 3.5GHz, nor would anyone in their right mind do so if it still has same # of cores (unless the chip was just sitting there, free).

Instead all we have here is the same progression of technology that allowed you to have a 3.2GHz CPU in the first place.

FWIW, most people with a 2GHz CPU better than Celeron class, won't upgrade because of this 3.5GHz CPU either, they'll do so when their existing system costs most of what it's worth to fix due to (Windows/virus/etc) software or hardware failures if they can't DIY.

The strange environment here with computer tech enthusiasts is one of timeliness. You'll hear about people setting up new systems because that's when attention needs paid to such details, but you won't hear much fuss about a system that just works day in, day out, but happens to be more than 2 years old. FYI, even gamers have a system that is older than that on average, though part of that could be due to the average age of a gamer placing them into an income bracket having less disposable income compared to other uses with significant performance bottlenecks.


RE: Pointless
By FaceMaster on 1/27/2009 12:30:05 PM , Rating: 1
High-end chips will lower the prices further down the line. It's nice to see such high clock speeds again. Although it's nice when a 2.2 Ghz Athlon out performs a 3 Ghz Pentium 4, there's something satisfying about high clock speeds. Especially when you combine it with mind blowing performance per mhz ;)

As for the extra power being pointless... extra power is never pointless. Why not just stick to a pentium 3 if your Microsoft Office 97 runs perfectly well?


RE: Pointless
By StevoLincolnite on 1/28/2009 1:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
Why Office 97? My granny had Office 2007 running on her Pentium 3 Katmai.


Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By batman4u on 1/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By Spivonious on 1/27/2009 9:46:13 AM , Rating: 4
You really shouldn't drink before noon. ;)

I agree with your point though. Microsoft is just now starting to push multi-threaded development and will be adding lots of multi-thread app debugging and coding tools and libraries to Visual Studio 2010. That means we really won't see widespread adoption on the Windows platform until at least 2012.

Unless you do lots of multitasking, or use apps that can take advantage of multi-core now, it's pointless to move up to quad-core/octo-core.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By tastyratz on 1/27/2009 11:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
Your right, he really shouldn't drink before noon :p

But

I would venture to say many more applications released in the last year or 2 are capable of taking advantage of multi threaded systems than not. I would say at this point you would have to be crazy to make an app without threading support. Visual studio is also not the only tool in existence to code.

Go to your task manager and add the column for threads. Look at all the applications running on your machine and think of how staggering the number of open threads exist on your machine. I have 1165 threads running right now and only 85 processes (granted I run this as a server that simply shows a statistic)

If a single application now can take advantage of 2 cores, why limit yourself to only being able to maximize efficiency through a single program?

I have noticed a few things after going quad core:

My system feels much more stable. If an application locks in a 100% cpu endless loop it no longer cripples my machine completely. I can recover successfully.

I conveniently no longer have to close what I am doing for intensive tasks. Playing a game? Don't worry about that email being open or that video being encoded - it wont slow you down. If windows starts churning away at something in the background you don't have to start wondering why its "so slow all of a sudden"

I don't need to use the excuse anymore of "I cant use my computer for xxx time until xyz is finished"

While Dual core is at its peak efficiency now you are only pre-dating your hardware by any investments in it as is instead of looking to the future.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By TomZ on 1/27/2009 11:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
You're right that most processes have multiple threads, even today. But at any given moment, most of those threads are idle/waiting, so that's not a totally compelling argument, IMO.

The problem of having one app taking 100% CPU was solved long ago when HyperThreading came out, and also with dual-core. You still have an overly responsive system unless you only have a single core.

But I agree that quad-core is quite nice. A lot of video codecs are optimized for multiple cores, for example. If it uses two cores, then that means you can still do useful work/play as you said. If it uses four cores, that means it's going to get the job done faster.

And I do expect the "average user" to be doing video transcoding pretty often. For example, a family video or HTPC-recorded show being burned to DVD. These tasks chew a lot of CPU time.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 12:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
You're out of your mind, the average user is not doing video transcoding ever, let alone often. Get out there and see how many people can't even use an IM program or set up networking if it doesn't work out of the box.

For the once in a full moon times the more tech savvy people are doing video transcoding, it's hardly important if it gets done as fast as possible. If it were, they'd be spending more on their systems instead of keeping what they have or buying towards the low end most of the time... again, this being the supposedly average person, not a tech enthusiast.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By TomZ on 1/27/2009 12:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know...how many average consumers are buying digital camcorders these days whose PC software has a "record to DVD" feature? Click that button and you're invariably in the realm of video transcoding...and you're also in for a long wait before your DVD is done.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By tastyratz on 1/27/2009 12:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people transcode and have no idea thats what they are doing.

All they know is they put their videos in their my videos folder, and followed a dummies guide so it can play on their xbox 360/ps3/etc. People put their dvd's in so it can play on their psp. People get digital home camcorders and tell it to make a dvd... All of these common events are transcoding and essential in a media centric usage scenario which is becoming more and more commonplace.

People burn a dvd and surf the web while they wait? That's multitasking with multiple threads. What about while their pc is squeezing that movie onto their ipod? or when they are streaming a transcoded movie to the tivo while the wife is checking their online banking page? How about working while windows update is installing in the background?

By technical definition we take it for granted but I am willing to bet you would be surprised at the average consumers multitasking, and complex tasks done through a dummy proof gui.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By mindless1 on 1/27/2009 12:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you're half right. Yes "more" apps in recent years are multithreaded, but more doesn't necessarily mean most, it's more often larger titles costing more money, and most people do not rebuy all their major software every couple years so regardless of what might exist, that does not reflect what people are actually running (besides benchmarkers).

Go to task manager and look at threads, but also look at CPU % or time. Having more cores sitting mostly idle isn't so useful, you only need consider those linearly bound or time-sensitive processes when it comes to # of CPU cores.

You ask, if a single app now can take advantage of 2 cores, why limit yourself?
The answer to that is simple, you erroneously assume it is a significant limit to most people and uses. You are taking an idealized theory and ignoring the factual data surrounding uses of systems, even the one you are looking at to get the thread counts.

Remember, the world got along fine with only single core PC CPUs for many years. There was no particular yearning for multi-cores, it came when CPU process sizes weren't allowing speed scaling, heat density was becoming problematic.

If your system is "much more stable" after going quad core, you have a serious flaw somewhere. Even a single core system is 100% stable or defective. Going to dual core, a heavy multitasker might find the GUI snappier, but if you have app locks the solution is patch or replace the app, not leaving (with a quad core) 1/4 the processor locked in a dead loop.

You never needed to close what you were doing for an intensive task. Task Manager clearly shows a trival % of CPU time with idle tasks, and priority levels are assigned and reassigned by the OS and manually if necessary.

If you worry about an email app being open or video encoded, most likely you didn't have enough memory, if you have at least two cores (for the latter video encoding, if it must be done realtime from a live stream, otherwise it is a simple priority assignment that any single core system has handled fine for the past decade).

You actually thought a computer wasn't usable till some job was finished? Wow, just WOW. This is insane. I could simultaneously play a game, encode video, listen to an MP3 in the background, have an email app open, etc, back in the Pentium 2 era (before which, the limit was an affordable amount of memory, and to some extent total processing power since MP3 is a realtime activity as well as gaming). Regardless, a single core 1GHz CPU paired with 512MB memory could easily do that, nothing remotely modern is needed to continue using a system, certainly not multiple CPU cores until one thread has a realtime processing requirement beyond what any one core can deliver.

This latter scenario is certainly possible, with some games, realtime video encoding or decoding, but not present in most cases.

Looking towards the future is a waste. In that future, you'll have bought another new system, can then judge what you actually need at the time, including whether you then need to spend the thousands of dollars to replace all your legacy applications (which most people don't). For that matter, quite a large number of apps are not multithreaded, you are probably thinking only of the larger developers' wares used on web benchmarks which comprises a small portion of users' tasks. Fact is, beyond a pro most people are not running a CAD, photoshop, video encoding most of the time on their PC.

You need to consider that people got the work done years ago and still do, without being burdened about things that may be important "some day".

Being able to use a system is a sign of ability, but thinking the system has to be XYZ to be usable is not.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By TomZ on 1/27/2009 12:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could simultaneously play a game, encode video, listen to an MP3 in the background, have an email app open, etc, back in the Pentium 2 era
I call BS on that one. First of all, video encoding on a Pentium 2 would take so long as to not be practical.

But more importantly, once you have a single process chewing 100% CPU, with Windows and an single-core CPU, then there's not much you can do any more on that machine. I remember this very clearly - and that was even on a Pentium 4. I remember it well because at my company all the software devs upgraded too HT-based P4's once they came out because when you were compiling a large C++ app, you could at least still check your e-mail or work on a Word document. With a single-core non-HT, this was not even possible.

Video encoding, playing games, checking e-mail all at the same time on a P2 - NOT!


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By Spivonious on 1/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By TomZ on 1/27/2009 12:53:32 PM , Rating: 5
True in theory; untrue in reality. The scheduling never worked as well as you described. A single process using 100% CPU brings everything else to a halt. Seen it a million times.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By Spectator on 1/27/2009 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 3
I think its more related to the task owning 100% of the memory/subsytem. Not the single CPU 100%.

But then that is another process entirely. sharing system resources not just CPU resources :(


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By Spivonious on 1/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By mindless1 on 1/29/2009 11:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
False, it is only true if the process is erroneously assigned a priority level higher than it should have (which in NT can be adjusted easily, surely you know how if you have a defective app doing this?), otherwise the moment you make another app in-focus, it elevates priority.

It's quite possible you have seen a problem a (few hundred, let's stick to facts shall we?) few times, but what about all the times it worked properly so you didn't see any problem? This is a very simple basic principle about computing, so many years after mere PCs were able to multitask.

You will never have a process that is linear bound (consuming all CPU time till it is done, "IF" it could really do that) take priority over anything else you want to have priority, if only you avoid buggy apps or manually fix the situation if you insist on those).


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By tastyratz on 1/27/2009 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Completely untrue.
Perhaps if you have a high priority task requiring cpu time while your intensive task is a background low priority one that would be the case. If the processes were equal priority then they fought over cpu time. If both processes required more than 100% of cpu time then that means they both suffered.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By mindless1 on 1/29/2009 11:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
If your task is high priority and you accept that, then by default you WANT it to have as much CPU time as it can have relative to something lower priority.

On the other hand, if you didn't especially want that to happen, it should not be above normal priority meaning the moment you navigate the GUI to focus another app, that newly focused app has higher priority even if it globally had the same priority.

You wrote "if both processes required more than 100% of CPU time", and IF both processes were requiring realtime processing you are correct, and I specifically mentioned that scenario to qualify my statements. In that case you need at least as many cores as you have things that "require" realtime processing, but most things are not realtime.

Most things can happily wait their turn while the primary work at the moment has higher priority. People always make some effort to try and come up with extreme situations, where they think it would be important, then proceed to jump to the conclusion that their specially crafted special/unusual situation should be assumed common and ordinary when it really isn't all that ordinary except for a very few people who actively try to cause it, while simultaneously putting thought into what I wrote about priorities.

This is really basic old school stuff, has everyone forgotten such things? I hope not, it's still relevant today since you have many more threads than CPU cores in any PC.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By StevoLincolnite on 1/28/2009 1:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I call BS on that one. First of all, video encoding on a Pentium 2 would take so long as to not be practical.


Right in the Pentium 2 Era most games only required a CPU that ranged from a 486 to a Pentium 133, Programs like Winamp 2 were massively simple and not very CPU intensive.

Plus games back then had very little Physics, this was during the Dawn of 3D Acceleration, hence the focus was on "Graphics" not "Game Fidelity" and 3dfx ruled the roost.

DVD like Video was not common, instead most video's was massively lossy MPEG 2 streams that would work on a Dial-up connection with a little buffering, however... They did have what they would call a "DVD Accelerator" in those days because the Processor couldn't handle rendering DVD quality video streams. (Usually the minimum was a Celeron 400 to run DVD video).

The Pentium 2 was in a different Era than the Pentium 4, Software was not as bloated and was incredibly optimized and simple because the majority of systems were mid-ranged Pentiums 1's.

I used to Play StarCraft, While running Winamp, and converting CD's into MP3's. - The system was fine, but remember this was in a day and age where the Operating system consumed about 8 Megabytes of Ram And StarCraft could run on even the crappiest of systems, remember Software requirements have scaled with Hardware requirements over the years and so has the capability of the software, and allot of time has flown by since then...


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By mindless1 on 1/29/2009 11:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Finally I come upon someone who was able to multitask by knowing how to use a PC back then, though to clarify what /I/ was saying, bloat over time is a bit of a tangent, a moving target, the example was one to show that task switching is what makes the difference, not throwing another core at a buggy app someone claims has locked up or is coded to run at an inappropriate priority level.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By mindless1 on 1/29/2009 11:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Video encoding even today is slow based on what someone will say in the future, and yet today you think it's fast compared to then.

Keep in mind, back then we didn't use MPEG4, nor HD, but rest assured I was doing it.

You are completely ignoring what I wrote. When you have 100% usage, all you need to use the system otherwise is a thread at higher priority. Thus, as I wrote, the only limit is with things that have to be realtime, like what I wrote - audio (MP3) playback, realtime streaming video capture, gaming.

You are completely wrong within the context of what I wrote, which was a distinction about which are realtime activities, how much memory the system has, and what priority level each has.

If you don't understand this, learn it because today it is as relevant as ever, someone trying to do anything that's linearly bound along with a realtime activity will benefit from this basic fundamental of task switching.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By tastyratz on 1/27/2009 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I am calling the red flag on this one just like Tomz

Any of those intensive tasks you named would chew up resources. Obviously there is more to a PC than just cpu but I limited my post because its the scope of discussion.

quote:
I could simultaneously play a game, encode video, listen to an MP3 in the background, have an email app open, etc,


Wow a system wouldn't be unusable when your pegging 100% cpu usage? do you really need to put on your shocked face?
I would love your computer... the one that does not slow down to unsatisfactory speeds while performing miraculous feats.

While process priority is technically implemented its novelty at best because its highly under-utilized. I see 83 processes right now. 4 of them prioritized "above normal", 4 of them prioritized as "high". 3 of the above normals are my gotomypc session and 1 of them is my antivirus.
Everything else fights equally over system power.

Priority helps but most users don't go into task manager to change process priorities after each application launching. I personally have never noticed windows throttle apps by changing its running priority from default. Half the time if you touch it your just asking for a hung app somewhere.

Another thing to consider as well is that system startup is really multitasking.

Obviously with 1000+ threads many of them are idle at best. My point was simply on load distribution based on sheer thread count - people view this as if a system only has 2 threads running at a time.

As far as multiple threads I see 12 executables of the 83 running which only have a single thread process. Everything else is 2 or more (whether or not they are utilized at this time) This shows that while many apps are not fully optimized with multiple threads, most of them DO in fact multithread.

Multiple core cpu's are nothing new. They have had time to mature and have almost complete market penetration on new computers. Applications seemed to take a year to catch up but I find them to be reasonably up to speed. Almost every modern game now utilizes 4 cores well.

Looking forward to the future is not a waste because its the immediate future. Its all apps forward. The small monetary change in running 2 additional cores will extend the usable life of your system.

p.s. you are correct I do have a flaw that causes applications to freeze up. Its a very common bug. It starts with "W", and ends with "indows". It is the most common bug on PC's these days, I just buy my hardware accordingly :-)


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By mindless1 on 1/29/2009 11:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Consider my perspective, that what you believe or understand is somewhat irrelevant when I'll telling you exactly how I used a system.

If you feel such a thing is impossible, review your train of thought, and consider all the stipulations I mentioned, because it's not only possible, it happens all the time until you have a rouge app or user misconfiguration causing a problem. The OS itself, without any other jobs running, does this too!


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By Spivonious on 1/27/2009 12:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Visual studio is also not the only tool in existence to code.


Very true, and for the developers coding straight to the API with C/C++, it's not a big impact.

But take all of the business software being developed in house. Unless you have a savvy developer who can make good use of multithreading, having multiple cores is a waste of time. Now that MS is pushing multi-threaded development, more of these in-house developers will take advantage of it. The libraries MS has created are pretty cool too. The compiler automatically parallelizes loops that you mark as being parallel capable. The debugger actually lets you step into each thread and see what it's doing, rather than only seeing the active thread. Visual Studio isn't the only dev environment, but it's probably the most popular one for Windows.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By TomZ on 1/27/2009 12:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
Any serious GUI development has always required multiple threads, and I've personally been doing multi-threaded development in C++ for Windows since VC6 - about 10 years.

Yes, maybe MS is pushing it more now and adding tools to make it more convenient, but developing multi-threaded apps has for a long time been a part of mainstream Windows application development experience.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By Spivonious on 1/27/2009 3:55:25 PM , Rating: 1
True, but with VB6 then and the CLR now, all of the mucky GUI threads are handled for you, and I'd be willing to bet that most new Windows development these days takes place in .NET.

I think MS pushing it and making it more convenient will have a big effect on the number of parallelized apps being released, but we won't see it for a couple of years yet.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By rudolphna on 1/27/2009 12:26:00 PM , Rating: 1
Because tens of thousands of people still HAVE socket 775? I know I want them to keep out 775 chips for a while so I can upgrade my system instead of having to build a whole new one. I have 4gigs of ram, so im set. In the future I hope to only have to upgrade my processor and graphics card. If they are only making Socket 1366 chips then.... I have to buy a whole new computer again


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By batman4u on 1/27/2009 2:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
haha i apologize for my bad typing, drinking before noon? its always a good time for a CORONA ;) and i blame my typing to my iphone :D

i know Socket 775 is good still, but its getting old, the only good reason to bring out a "new" dual core should be to adapt it to Socket 1366 because i dont see a good reson to upgrade from a Wolfdale 3.33 ghz to a 3.5...WOLFDALE duh wow what a diference, two core processors would be a good reson to shift to 1366 and not spending hard cash, well asuming a dual core 1366 would go for 120dlls, that would be a good reson to shift and then when quads are really neccesary i just would have to buy a quad core cpu alone instead of building a new PC

because if TODAY i betrayed my AMD loyalty and decided to buila an intel based computer, and dont have 600dlls to buy mobo, memory cpu combo, i would have to buy a OLD 775 socket that in no more than 1 year will be like socket 939, still functional but old and later obsolete

i build computers not as a business but as a hobby and built over 1000 computers and from experience a dual core would be a real good motivation for normal everyday user to buy intel socket 1366 motherboards and triple channel memory


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By TomZ on 1/27/2009 2:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i build computers not as a business but as a hobby and built over 1000 computers
That's quite a lot of computers to build for your hobby. What do you do with all of them?


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By batman4u on 1/27/2009 3:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
i love building computers since 1996, and as a hobby build for friends and friend of friends and so on, i have a nice reputation between known people of making solid computers at a fair price since i usually dont make much of them i just love buying and building efficient computers all because
1) what i most enjoy of computers is building them i dont know why and

2)i really hate how alot of PC brands their is abuses on peoples ignorance of pc hardware.

for example they sell you 4gb of ramm but dont tell you that is crappy 533mhz ram or HDD that are only 5400RPM or worst those HDD that say 7200 but the fact is between 5400-7200 or OLD sockets, they sell you 1gb o video but hello on a crappy video card with shared memory or an lowend or misd end that sells very expensive, or simply BAD mobo, BAD PSUs etc etc etc etc ... i get headaches from those kind of marketing-games they play on people


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By Spectator on 1/27/2009 3:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
you have a tough market. Either.

people dont understand the difference and just want something cheap.

Or they have enough knowledge to build thier own PC.

I find it quite amusing to show them a few parts and say.
See this power supply unit, you can pay £15 upto £300 for that. See this Graphics card; you can pay £xx to £440 for that and top systems have 2 of those.

Either way your not appreciated. And they dont understand how many hours it takes to install/sort software side.


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By kilkennycat on 1/27/2009 4:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i build computers not as a business but as a hobby and built over 1000 computers


If you are in the US, it is coming up to tax-time. I do hope that you have kept all the purchase receipts for 2005 thru 2008 and have declared any profits you have made on such builds to the IRS..... building 1000 computers over, say, a 10-year period would indeed be viewed by the IRS as a part-time income-producing business... UNLESS you just charged your friends the sum-total of your purchase plus shipping costs of all the parts and software and nothing else..... ZERO profit to you...


RE: Mmmm 3.5 for what?
By batman4u on 1/27/2009 5:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
im in Mexico, you wont believe the scams all major brands do here, some still sell Core duo (not core 2 duo) as brand new, and brands i.e. ALASKA is a SUB of DELL they sell refurbished as brand new, i always thought some brands had a very low quality control until i met a friend from PANAMA whose uncle works at DELL and told me that at least 70% hardware they sell here are refurbished i couldnt believe it myself until i saw a container at a donation facility in the USA that said MONTERREY as to where it shipped which is where i live in mexico

so thats why all computers here where so crappy :P not because of low quality but because of being refurbished

not everything here is like this but its harder not getting scammed here


If nobody else is going to say it....
By lagitup on 1/27/09, Rating: -1
"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki