• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Two Too Many

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

hafa

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2003
Location
A tiny dot in the middle of the Pacific
I suppose that I'm just one of a "few people using a few apps"; I wonder how many of us here are serious Photoshop users?

Of course, the "vast majority of people" must be those who game according to the link that Ed provided on his front page article.

This group is more along the lines of what I use a computer for and the data here are dramatically different from those presented for gaming. Even taking into account that it's overclocked and that the article appears on Tom's, the differences for productivity apps are significant.

Depending on pricing and availability (as Ed mentioned) the quad processors (AMD or Intel) may be quite attractive to those of use who use productivity apps in a professional capacity on a daily basis.
 
hafa said:
Depending on pricing and availability (as Ed mentioned) the quad processors (AMD or Intel) may be quite attractive to those of use who use productivity apps in a professional capacity on a daily basis.

And to us folders!!!
 
I would get a quad if only for the added folding power. :) No, it's true that desktop apps are not optimized for quad-core....only a few short years ago, four CPUs meant two motherboards, a rack, or a really huge E-ATX motherboard. In other words, prohibitively expensive for most applications. Problem is, most developers who made apps that could take advantage of 4 CPUs worth of horsepower were either financially/time restricted, or simply lazy.

Hardware really has caught software with its pants down, again. And all the developers are scrambling. Of course, Microsoft is already finding quite a few ways to fill the gap...
 
This article could be rewritten and change the word quad to dual. Most real world users still see no difference going from one core to two. And no, folding and superpi are not real world ;)

Even gaming still lacks support for dual core, many games require you to disable one core to play properly, and some even run slower on a dual core than a single core at the same clock speed. And again, 64 bit support hasn't even happened yet. I know numerous people who went with XP 64 bit, had insane ammounts of driver, application and game problems, so they just went back to old XP 32 bit and never looked back.

64 bit OS, drivers and software all specifically written for multi core CPU's will be needed before even dual core is worth the money.
 
Bad Maniac said:
64 bit OS, drivers and software all specifically written for multi core CPU's will be needed before even dual core is worth the money.

Ah, but herein lies the rub: worth is a subjective measure, hence the point for my original post: Productivity apps such as Photoshop, Illustrator, CAD programs and 3D studio max are all designed to take advantage of SMP. Therefore, multi-core processors provide a significant advantage while using these apps.

Another place multi core processors shine is multitasking. I routinely run between 25-30 open applications at a time, while simultaneously running an SQL server agent, multiple file synchronization routines, scanner monitors, gamma loaders, etc... In this type of environment, multiple processors are a big advantage.

Remember, <heresy>not all of us game</heresy>
 
hafa said:
Ah, but herein lies the rub: worth is a subjective measure, hence the point for my original post: Productivity apps such as Photoshop, Illustrator, CAD programs and 3D studio max are all designed to take advantage of SMP. Therefore, multi-core processors provide a significant advantage while using these apps.

Another place multi core processors shine is multitasking. I routinely run between 25-30 open applications at a time, while simultaneously running an SQL server agent, multiple file synchronization routines, scanner monitors, gamma loaders, etc... In this type of environment, multiple processors are a big advantage.

Remember, <heresy>not all of us game</heresy>


25-30 apps open at one time :eek:
How much Ram do you have in that system ?
 
I never got this whole multitasking thing. I've only got one pair of eyes and hands...
Sure I can:
1. Browse the web
and
2. Listen to Winamp
at the same time. Maybe even
3. Unpack an archive in the background.

But I can do all those three simultaneously on a P3 500... Sure "worth" is subjective. But for 99.999% of the PC users out there, dual core, let alone 64 bit, or even Athlon / P4's / Conroes are far from worth it, a P3 would do what they need easily. For the rest of us, who either game, run 700 apps at the same time, or run app servers or some other heavy multitasking environment, yes it's worth it, but we'll only make up 0.001% of the PC users in the universe. The rest couldnt give a toss.
 
hkgonra said:
25-30 apps open at one time :eek:
How much Ram do you have in that system ?

2GB and sometimes it's just enough ;). Fortunately, some of the applications I run have relatively small memory requirements. The next workstation build I do (likely early 2007) will be running Windows Small Business Server 2003 R2 for better stability, support for more processors and increased memory capacity.

day 03:00 AM Bad Maniac said:
I never got this whole multitasking thing. I've only got one pair of eyes and hands...

Not to sound condescending, but it's probably because you don't do programming and graphic design for a living.

A typical design session for me will include doing html and related server-side code which is in turn tied to MSSQL database development, graphics design, image manipulation and interactive flash and/or PDF applications. All of these interact very closely in the finished product, so if I had to open and close each application every time a change was made, my workflow would be seriously disrupted.

Furthermore, database design and data manipulation tasks often require Excel to be open and clients often send word documents as well as hard copy which needs scanning and OCR before being added to the finished product. Of course, multiple browsers need to be open to do comparisons in realtime, several additional iterations of text editors are running for code snips and mail clients need to check email every minute or so to keep in close touch with my clients. And of course, I DO like to listen to winamp while all of this is happening.

In addition to all of this, many automated processes occur in the background to maintain backups of existing online databases, backup dynamic online content to my local server, do DVR security monitoring of the offices and run peripherals.

Of course an extended desktop w/3 monitors significantly enhances efficiency by removing the need to minimize and facilitating at-a-glance confirmation of data structure, rendering and visuals in the course of code development.

I'll reiterate: If I had to constantly open/close applications, I'd have precious little time to do anything else. Given my hourly rate, the amount of time I save having multiple processors/cores amounts to a significant amount of cash. :bday:

BTW, it's also not unusual for me to have a laptop running an AS/400 5250 emulator over VPN to monitor compiling of RPG programs and a Mac running to do visuals on Safari while all of the above is going on. Welcome to the 21st century...
 
I think Ed is correct. The vast majority of users still just want to check the weather online and send their mom and email. And some of them want to play games. Sure, maybe CAD, photoshop and all the others might benefit...but they still make up a small selection of the population.

And...no offense meant hafa...but you sound about as far from the average user as one could possibly get. For everyone one of you, there's probably at least 100 secretaries downloading bonzai buddy.
 
PingSpike said:
I think Ed is correct. The vast majority of users still just want to check the weather online and send their mom and email. And some of them want to play games. Sure, maybe CAD, photoshop and all the others might benefit...but they still make up a small selection of the population.

And...no offense meant hafa...but you sound about as far from the average user as one could possibly get. For everyone one of you, there's probably at least 100 secretaries downloading bonzai buddy.

Certainly no offense taken. Being other than average has been a life-long occupation...

For the masses, both you and Ed are correct. It seemed quite clear, however, that Ed was addressing the forum members and front page readers in his article; definitely an other than average group.

:eek: bonzai buddy :eek:
 
Ed is interesting to me because he often brings me down to earth. I think most of his articles are trying to keep us from transplanting our feelings into our recommendations for other people that have different needs. Its easy to say "woah! conroe is so awesome!" and then tell everyone they need a conroe that asks you...but do they really? Its the same deal with quad core. Its interesting...but do *I* even need it? Much less my family? Ehh...not so much.

I guess I just chose to see Ed's article differently. I'll have to reread it to see whether I was just 'seeing what I expected'. That has been known to happen!
 
Bad Maniac said:
64 bit OS, drivers and software all specifically written for multi core CPU's will be needed before even dual core is worth the money.
Linux. Specifically, Gentoo. Compile it all for multithreading, 64-bit, etc. :p
Bad Maniac said:
I never got this whole multitasking thing. I've only got one pair of eyes and hands...
Sure I can:
1. Browse the web
and
2. Listen to Winamp
at the same time. Maybe even
3. Unpack an archive in the background.

But I can do all those three simultaneously on a P3 500.
Not really simultaneously, it just looks that way :) You'd need the quad-core for it to actually be doing three things simultaneously :p
 
hafa said:
Depending on pricing and availability (as Ed mentioned) the quad processors (AMD or Intel) may be quite attractive to those of use who use productivity apps in a professional capacity on a daily basis.

OK I give you that, but as far as major product lines go, professional power users and folding enthusiasts are not where the money is made. I agree that by the time AMD and Intel are shipping mainstream quad core parts, every day apps are likely to be written so as to be much better multithreaded, but your software having the ability to run on 4 cores is quite different to it requiring them. Unless M$ decides to add some unexpected and bizzare bloated features to Blackcomb and future versions of Office, IMHO 4 cores will remain 2 too many, for most users, for a long time to come.
 
Do you guys remember when the first dual cores came out? There was a great wowfactor. A lot of people who were gamers were thinking to themselves, "Imagine me being able to play Doom 3 on one core and run Bit Torrent on another core." What people didnt expect was that the cores couldnt be individually used, but that both cores divided and evened out the workload. With all the hardware that has been coming out, there is one vital thing we are missing. The software, programs like Photoshop, folding@home,
3DS Max. These programs would benefit from the four cores. But the average person is not going to be running 30 or more apps at one time. Reason being, each market appeals to different people. You have average users that only chat, check their email and surf the web. Then you have the gamers. Then the overclockers and tweakers. And so on and so on.

The Quad core is targeting more of a niche market than anything else. In my opinion, it will be a very, very long time before the quad core goes mainstream. By this time, Intel and AMD will be jumping onto another train that is aimed for 10, 20, heck even 100 cores. It's all about efficiency and applying the product to a certain market. Will I buy into the Quad Core deal? Heck no, I'm still using a single core 3200+ and am very happy with it. It hasnt let me down once and I wont upgrade to dual core until possibly later on in 2007. If I dont plan to go for an FX-55. Multi threading is just taking off. Consumers should be given some breathing room rather than the guy's at Intel and AMD expecting people to buy into all the hype of the next big thing. I'm giving it a least another few months before apps and games are multithreaded to allow better overall performance in dual core. Until the software catches up with the hardware, we're not going to fully utilize 64 bit, Dual Core, and Multi Threading.
 
I was under the impression that because of a number of reasons (below) that super duper multi core CPUs weren't more efficient, just that adding more cores is currently more feasible than significant boosts in clockspeed. I don't have any engineering/science background, so I don't claim to speak with authority, this is just the impression that I have gotten while speaking to others.


-The difficulty and in some cases impossibility of multithreading some code.

-The diminishing returns in performance when writing programs with a lot of threads. (don't quote me on this)

-Much lower yeilds of really big dies.
 
InsaneManiac said:
Do you guys remember when the first dual cores came out? There was a great wowfactor. A lot of people who were gamers were thinking to themselves, "Imagine me being able to play Doom 3 on one core and run Bit Torrent on another core." What people didnt expect was that the cores couldnt be individually used, but that both cores divided and evened out the workload. . .


cant you set the affinity and have the cores work independantly for diffrent tasks? I used to set my old x2 4800 cores to play eq2 on one core and run azureus and explorer on the other one.
 
Back