Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Many web browsers are now becoming multithreaded or using multiple
>> processes. So now you'll be able to use browser tabs, each with some
>> bloated Javascript monstrosity, without any of them slowing down!
> 
>   I'd call that a complete waste of resources and money. :)

Yup. But it's what the world is turning into. CPUs get faster, and software
turns slower, and there is more abuse of interpreted languages.

"Now that you have 80 cores, you can use this web-based Photoshop clone
written in Javascript!"

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
>   I'm talking about an actual modern game.
> 
>   After it easily calculates everything it has to calculate per frame,
> adding more cores is not going to speed it up at all.

That has been true for eons of gaming: If the framerate exceeded that of 
your display, that would be the moment where it would be absolutely 
nonsense to buy a faster computer for /that/ game.

However, if you buy a computer /now/, and intend to use that, say, just 
two years, your computer /will/ see games that max it out, even if the 
current ones don't.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I'm wondering: What do people do with so many cores? And I'm talking about
> average people, not people who use POV-Ray 3.7 (who are a rather small
> minority).

You could argue that it makes the system more responsive... but that's a 
scheduling problem.  More cores won't solve scheduling problems, they 
just mask them for a while.

>   About the only usage for multiple cores for the masses (rather than for
> very small niche markets) is computer games which support multithreading.
> 
>   However, I wonder if anyone has actually benchmarked how well current
> multithreading-supporting games scale up with increased amount of cores
> (and processors).

Yes, several times.

An extremely well optimized game will gain about 70% from a second core. 
  A third core might get you another 30% (of the baseline), and I don't 
know of any games that actually show a benefit from a fourth core.

>   So what do people need so many cores for? Not everyone uses them for
> multithreaded rendering or video editing.

Heat dissipation and power usage.

Running four cores at 25% each means you can underclock the CPU, with 
all the benefits that entails.

Plus, heat generation is spread in four parts of the die, rather than 
being concentrated in one locale.

So most users run the CPU at a fraction of its potential, and then, when 
it's (admittedly rarely) needed, it's appreciated :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:
>>   So what do people need so many cores for? Not everyone uses them for
>> multithreaded rendering or video editing.
>>
> Who cares what they use them for? The more people buying them, the lower
> the price gets to you and me :-)


Besides, if history has taught us anything about resource usage, it's 
that usage will expand to consume all available resources.  If you put 
more CPU power in the hands of the public, they'll find more inventive 
ways to use it* :)

30 years ago, nobody dreamed that you would be able to run a webserver 
on your home PC, or that we could have hundreds of digitized movies in a 
package smaller than a VHS tape, or that there would be an iPhone app 
that helps catalog important information about your bicycle making it 
easier to identify if it gets stolen.  Yet, all those things are now a 
reality.

Let the masses loose at it :)

*In fact, the history of the PC is really about empowerment of the 
individual, making vast amounts of storage and computational power 
available to average people in their own homes.

This is one of the reasons I'm liking MS more these days... their XNA 
community is about getting as many people as possible developing games. 
  Sure, most of them will be crap... but there are going to be some gems 
in there that would otherwise never be made.

And this is also why Apple is scaring me lately, with their "walled 
garden" mentality.  If (or when) they implement a tablet pc (again), 
it's likely to be something akin to a 10" iPod, meaning you have to go 
through the App store (and, thus, get approval from Apple) to get 
programs for it.  How long after that until they implement such a 
draconian system for their laptops, and then their desktops?

Now, don't get me wrong: MS is not pure good, and Apple is not pure 
evil.  But, watching the direction the two companies are going, MS seems 
to be getting better and Apple getting worse (in terms of control).

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Where in the name of God can you get 12 Mbit/sec? I thought 8 was the 
> maximum that ADSL supports...

20 is standard for Comcast around here.  They just recently switched a 
ton of their cable subscribers from analog to digital, freeing up a 
bunch of bandwidth, so they jumped everyone's internet from 5 to 20 Mbps.

Given that digital cable takes ~1/6 the bandwidth of analog, that means 
that Comcast still has room to grow (adding new customers or upping 
speeds again) without worrying about capacity for a while.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

> So most users run the CPU at a fraction of its potential, and then, when 
> it's (admittedly rarely) needed, it's appreciated :)

Same as car engines.

Post a reply to this message

>> >  Thus after a certain point, when your current CPU can calculate the
>> > physics and AI just fine, adding more cores won't change anything.
>
>> I can't even begin to imagine any point where a CPU will be able to
>> calculate physics perfectly without cutting any corners.
>
>  I'm talking about an actual modern game.
>
>  After it easily calculates everything it has to calculate per frame,
> adding more cores is not going to speed it up at all.

Of course not, but it means you will be able to run the next game that is 
released.

Post a reply to this message

> And it's not like game developers weren't creative in finding ways of 
> scaling /some/ stuff to adjust to different computer performance levels.

At least on some car racing simulators the maximum number of cars you can 
have in a race would often be CPU limited.  The CPU time needed to do the 
complex physics for a car far outweighs drawing a few meshes for the car on 
the GPU, especially as for each frame the GPU renders, the CPU must do at 
least 10 or 20 physics steps.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> So there are hex-core Operons now, eh? And HP are planning to ship them?
> 
> Obviously, I immediately wondered where you buy an 8-socket HP server 
> populated with hex-core Operons, and what such a beast would cost.

Tonight was my first night at a new class, and it turns out the 
professor works at Intel for his day job, testing new hardware from them.

He mentioned two particular toys that I'm envious of.  Larrabee, the new 
graphics part, and a 16 core server with 1TB of RAM.

Man, I'd love having his job :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> So there are hex-core Operons now, eh? And HP are planning to ship them?
>> 
>> Obviously, I immediately wondered where you buy an 8-socket HP server
>> populated with hex-core Operons, and what such a beast would cost.
> 
> Tonight was my first night at a new class, and it turns out the
> professor works at Intel for his day job, testing new hardware from them.
> 
> He mentioned two particular toys that I'm envious of.  Larrabee, the new
> graphics part, and a 16 core server with 1TB of RAM.
> 
> Man, I'd love having his job :)

Will it pov?

Post a reply to this message