thoughts / questions on dual core

[dmanlyr]

I have been pondering this for some time now, but the idea of the dual core cpu's is in a way to mimick the current dual cpu setups, but with only one physical cpu to support on a motherboard rather than two, correct?

Or am I mistaken?

Second thought, if this is so, then there really is very little software that I have found that makes good use of dual cpus (or more) other than server software, so there is going to have be a development curve to get the software optimized for a dual core cpu, correct?

That said, why not spend the time/effort/costs to move to 64 bit or better yet, 128 bit cpu's and software? All things the same, in the long run this should be the better choice, at least in my opinion.

After all, look at the improvements when we moved from 4 bit to 8 bit, 16 bit and finally mainstream 32 bit computing. More speed without upping the clock speeds. 64 bit chips are nothing new, we had them and we had windows (32 bit) / Unix 32 / 64 bit) running on them way back in the 90's, so why not just make the jump to 128 bit or more? (AMD current 64 bit chips ARE NOT the "first windows compatible 64 bit chips") <--- rant there!

So what am I missing, or is this just the easy way out with dual cores? In my thinking, one way is the easy way out, but just like Intel's long pipeline for MHZ increases, it runs up against the wall rather quickly, shortsighted in my opinion, and is really not all that efficient..

Just some thoughts for discussion ~

[Strawbs]

1. yeah! sorta.

2. Yeah! definitely.


The AMD 64bit is the first to be aimed specifically at the "Home" user! It's the first to incorporate the ability to run 32\64bit code simultaneously at speeds comparable to native 32 or 64bit CPU's - negating the need to run Windows Server & shelling out thousands for a Xeon simply because you want to play Doom xXx! (patent pending)

The processing power of the 64bit has proved its metal, but there was an argument that we wouldn't ever need 64bit at home! Some held to that belief until the very recent past! *cough-Intel-cough*

They have recently changed their mind because of the thermal barrier suffocating their plans to scale P4 Prescot to "10GHz +".

Dual Core means you can have the benefits of 2 cpu's with very little Mobo modification from the manufacturer - hence less costly conversions\designs are required.

A processor crunching "everything" at 128bit would probably generate enough heat to shame the Sun into retirement! It is not possible with today's mainstream cooling technology, would be costly to manufacture & software houses would take years to produce any software to take advantage of it - the might even need 256bit processors to write the code for them.

Besides which - No Business needs 128bit (not even Hollywood's CGI dept.) yet - what the hey would mere mortals do with it?

of course I could be wrong about everything I've written here - ho-hum!

[Ankun]

I have been pondering this for some time now, but the idea of the dual core cpu's is in a way to mimick the current dual cpu setups, but with only one physical cpu to support on a motherboard rather than two, correct?

Second thought, if this is so, then there really is very little software that I have found that makes good use of dual cpus (or more) other than server software, so there is going to have be a development curve to get the software optimized for a dual core cpu, correct?

The best feature of dual cpu / dual core is multitasking. Windows NT/2k/XP already support SMP.. which means tasks (different "windows" if you will) can be divided among available CPUs. This means you can safely run your antivirus program and surf the web with one CPU and not have to worry about the movie you are watching with your other CPU freezing up. etc.

Also, most 3d applications / A/V encoders, etc. are multithreaded already. Dual core / CPU at the moment is not targetted at the gamer.. this has been recognized by AMD already with their decision to not bring their FX series to dual core (at least from what I last heard)

That said, why not spend the time/effort/costs to move to 64 bit or better yet, 128 bit cpu's and software? All things the same, in the long run this should be the better choice, at least in my opinion.

After all, look at the improvements when we moved from 4 bit to 8 bit, 16 bit and finally mainstream 32 bit computing. More speed without upping the clock speeds. 64 bit chips are nothing new, we had them and we had windows (32 bit) / Unix 32 / 64 bit) running on them way back in the 90's, so why not just make the jump to 128 bit or more? (AMD current 64 bit chips ARE NOT the "first windows compatible 64 bit chips") <--- rant there!

We are already at 64-bit. The software has been written already. IIRC the itanium was not compatable with non-64 bit capable OSes (reason x86-64, etc. works is because they are 32 bit compatable as well.)


I'd post more but i'm tired.

edit: I think there will be a development curve for dual core CPU software but everyone other than the hardcore gamer and the old man that can only do one thing at a time we will notice a huge difference immediately.