Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel faces pricing dilemma from Dell

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel
  • Dual Core
  • Dell
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2005 8:18:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Dell has said that it does not want to raise prices on its systems any
more than what it normally does with any other new CPU introduction.
With Intel expected to ask upto 90% per dual-core CPU than single-core,
either Dell is going to have raise its prices, or Intel will have to
reduce its. My feeling is that Intel is going to have to sell its chips
to Dell at whatever price Dell wants it to. :-)

Forbes.com: Intel Faces 'Pricing Dilemma' For Dual-Core Chips
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/04/07/0407automarket...

Yousuf Khan

More about : intel faces pricing dilemma dell

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 2:14:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:01:22 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:18:45 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Dell has said that it does not want to raise prices on its systems any
>>more than what it normally does with any other new CPU introduction.
>>With Intel expected to ask upto 90% per dual-core CPU than single-core,
>>either Dell is going to have raise its prices, or Intel will have to
>>reduce its. My feeling is that Intel is going to have to sell its chips
>>to Dell at whatever price Dell wants it to. :-)
>>
>>Forbes.com: Intel Faces 'Pricing Dilemma' For Dual-Core Chips
>>http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/04/07/0407automarket...
>>
>
>Yousuf, I know how you enjoy bad news for Intel, but this is a coming
>problem for the entire industry: "What if they announced a miracle,
>and everybody went back to watching the Simpsons?"
>
>Just as AMD has gotten some margin relief from Opteron, Intel is
>probably going to be looking for margin in the Xeon market. With
>desktop chips, everybody should just be happy if people want to
>upgrade, never mind that they want to pay extra money for something
>most software can't yet use.

A myth.

Run a typical mix of applications, then open Task Manager and click on the
Processes sheet. Expand any threaded entries. Count.

If you still believe the two cores would not be used even on a lowly desktop
machine by mere tyros, your Add function is FUBAR...

/daytripper (hth ;-)
April 8, 2005 2:36:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:14:53 -0400, daytripper wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:01:22 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:18:45 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Dell has said that it does not want to raise prices on its systems any
>>>more than what it normally does with any other new CPU introduction.
>>>With Intel expected to ask upto 90% per dual-core CPU than single-core,
>>>either Dell is going to have raise its prices, or Intel will have to
>>>reduce its. My feeling is that Intel is going to have to sell its chips
>>>to Dell at whatever price Dell wants it to. :-)
>>>
>>>Forbes.com: Intel Faces 'Pricing Dilemma' For Dual-Core Chips
>>>http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/04/07/0407automarket...
>>>
>>
>>Yousuf, I know how you enjoy bad news for Intel, but this is a coming
>>problem for the entire industry: "What if they announced a miracle,
>>and everybody went back to watching the Simpsons?"
>>
>>Just as AMD has gotten some margin relief from Opteron, Intel is
>>probably going to be looking for margin in the Xeon market. With
>>desktop chips, everybody should just be happy if people want to
>>upgrade, never mind that they want to pay extra money for something
>>most software can't yet use.
>
> A myth.
>
> Run a typical mix of applications, then open Task Manager and click on the
> Processes sheet. Expand any threaded entries. Count.

Maybe RM still used Win9x. ;-) I remember these exact same arguments
thrown about by Win(g)nuts saying that OS/2's multi-tasking wasn't useful,
because no one can do two things at once.

> If you still believe the two cores would not be used even on a lowly desktop
> machine by mere tyros, your Add function is FUBAR...

....but only add those with processor activity. Yes, this argument is old
as Daisy Moses Clampett, and is still being spread be the Jethros of the
biz.

There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
(given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many cores
are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window can
be kept doing something interesting.

Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't. Expect
more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple cores
- all very predictable).

--
Keith
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 10:27:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:36:58 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

<snip>

>
>There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
>(given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many cores
>are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window can
>be kept doing something interesting.
>
>Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't. Expect
>more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple cores
>- all very predictable).

*Why* did anybody need 365 cubic inches and eight cylinders to drive
around city streets? To give young men the temptation to attract the
attention of the police by trying to do something will all that power
in a venu where it wasn't really useful, naturally.

An imperfect analogy? Maybe, but it's a sufficiently good fit that it
should make anyone in the business uncomfortable. When everybody had
a car that satisfied their basic transportation needs, Detroit had to
invent new needs, one of which was more power.

The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is how a
typical user uses computers. The typical user will buy more just as
people bought more horsepower because more is obviously always better?
To some extent, yes. But do take a look at the automobile industry.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 1:00:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
>>Well, this is not really the point, is it? Both Intel and AMD want to
>>charge quite a bit more for these new DC chips to make up for their
>>reduced yields. But it looks like one specific Intel-only vendor is
>>going to throw a monkey wrench into Intel's plans for profitability.
>>
>
> I may not find Michael Dell to be an attractive role model, but I do
> think he understands what people will buy and at what price.

Still missing the point. The point is that we're now going to see how
much power and influence each corporation (Dell & Intel) has with each
other now that they've recommitted to exclusivity with each other again.
It would show which one really wanted the exclusivity deal more.

>>If any revolution is needed in PC's it's get their prices down much,
>>much further. To the point where even the 3rd world can afford them.
>>
>
> Do you think PC's would really help the third world that much?

Yes, absolutely. However, I don't think it's appropriate to sell PC
technology to rice farmers and stuff. They should be concentrating on
the emerging affluent members of the third world, such as China, India,
Southeast Asia, etc.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 1:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> BTW the AMD/Dell rumors are back:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050407/tech_dell_amd.html?.v=1
>

Yup, saw those too, but not quite as much enthusiasm for them this time
like there was last time. Last time was the first time ever that
top-level Dell execs have openly said that they wanted to use AMD chips,
.... just before they announced that they won't of course. This time, it
won't even matter if Michael Dell himself says it, no one is going to
believe it.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 1:10:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.04.08.02.36.55.365047@att.bizzzz...
>
> There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
> (given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many
cores
> are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window
can
> be kept doing something interesting.

Based on 20+ years of PC experience, I think it's safe to say that
_one_ CPU core is useful in a desktop PC. More? What have they (both
of them :)  been using those dual-CPU Macs for?

> Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't.
Expect
> more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple
cores
> - all very predictable).
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 7:44:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
> But do take a look at the automobile industry.

OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
powerful engines than they really need or often use.

I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
meet the defintion of "background".

Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
to the point to being required.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 8, 2005 7:44:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D Fx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

> Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
> than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
> multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
> to the point to being required.

I don't agree. Most users haven't tried machines with more than one CPU,
but when they do, they're usually thrilled with the reduction in the hangs
and delays that single-CPU machines experience. I've heard it described many
times as the best computer upgrade they ever made.

Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines and never
tried a machine with more than once CPU probably don't even notice all the
little hangs and delays (and the occasional big one). You start to not even
notice that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop, you can't
keep working on that email very well. Well, on a multi-CPU machine, you can.
Try one for a day and see if you ever want to go back.

DS
April 9, 2005 2:22:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:04:35 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> George Macdonald wrote:
>> BTW the AMD/Dell rumors are back:
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050407/tech_dell_amd.html?.v=1
>>
>
> Yup, saw those too, but not quite as much enthusiasm for them this time
> like there was last time. Last time was the first time ever that
> top-level Dell execs have openly said that they wanted to use AMD chips,
> ... just before they announced that they won't of course. This time, it
> won't even matter if Michael Dell himself says it, no one is going to
> believe it.

Yousuf, why is this time any different than the last? That wolf is old,
gray, and well past tired. Who cares what it says?

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 2:29:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D Fx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>
> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
> powerful engines than they really need or often use.

I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
I want my computer to do that (run fast).

> I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
> don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
> in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
> of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
> not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
> do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
> meet the defintion of "background".
>
> Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
> than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
> multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
> to the point to being required.



--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
April 9, 2005 2:29:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:29:41 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:

> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:D Fx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>
>> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>> powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>
> I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
> I want my computer to do that (run fast).

Ok, I know of computers with a thousand "engines". So?

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 3:55:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
> Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines
> and never tried a machine with more than once CPU probably
> don't even notice all the little hangs and delays (and

Perhaps this is true, but then wouldn't those little hangs be
more the fault of poor OS programming (scheduler) than the lack
of hardware? Of course, more hardware has always been a mitigation
for poor programming. And such by MS has helped Linux enormously.

> the occasional big one). You start to not even notice
> that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop,
> you can't keep working on that email very well. Well, on a
> multi-CPU machine, you can. Try one for a day and see if
> you ever want to go back.

I very much doubt it would help. One of my biggest complaints
about MS-Windows so-called multitasking is lack of isolation
(focus-stealing). I can be merrily typing or clicking along in
one app when another pops up (often on top), and steals focus,
keystrokes and mouseclicks. Or buries some error window when
banished.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 3:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:LRE5e.29$m84.21@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
> wrote:

>> Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines
>> and never tried a machine with more than once CPU probably
>> don't even notice all the little hangs and delays (and

> Perhaps this is true, but then wouldn't those little hangs be
> more the fault of poor OS programming (scheduler) than the lack
> of hardware? Of course, more hardware has always been a mitigation
> for poor programming. And such by MS has helped Linux enormously.

Perhaps. Part of the issue is poorly designed peripherals and some of it
is poorly designed drivers.

>> the occasional big one). You start to not even notice
>> that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop,
>> you can't keep working on that email very well. Well, on a
>> multi-CPU machine, you can. Try one for a day and see if
>> you ever want to go back.

> I very much doubt it would help. One of my biggest complaints
> about MS-Windows so-called multitasking is lack of isolation
> (focus-stealing). I can be merrily typing or clicking along in
> one app when another pops up (often on top), and steals focus,
> keystrokes and mouseclicks. Or buries some error window when
> banished.

Yeah, that is one of my biggest complaints as well. However, that's a
separate issue from the issue of annoying hangs/delays/stalls when you're
trying to get work done.

DS
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 3:55:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:52:09 -0700, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

>
>"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
>news:LRE5e.29$m84.21@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Those of you who have used Windows on single-CPU machines
>>> and never tried a machine with more than once CPU probably
>>> don't even notice all the little hangs and delays (and
>
>> Perhaps this is true, but then wouldn't those little hangs be
>> more the fault of poor OS programming (scheduler) than the lack
>> of hardware? Of course, more hardware has always been a mitigation
>> for poor programming. And such by MS has helped Linux enormously.
>
> Perhaps. Part of the issue is poorly designed peripherals and some of it
>is poorly designed drivers.
>
>>> the occasional big one). You start to not even notice
>>> that during the four seconds it takes to launch Photoshop,
>>> you can't keep working on that email very well. Well, on a
>>> multi-CPU machine, you can. Try one for a day and see if
>>> you ever want to go back.
>
>> I very much doubt it would help. One of my biggest complaints
>> about MS-Windows so-called multitasking is lack of isolation
>> (focus-stealing). I can be merrily typing or clicking along in
>> one app when another pops up (often on top), and steals focus,
>> keystrokes and mouseclicks. Or buries some error window when
>> banished.
>
> Yeah, that is one of my biggest complaints as well. However, that's a
>separate issue from the issue of annoying hangs/delays/stalls when you're
>trying to get work done.

At least on 2K and XP, focus theft behavior is one that can be controlled
using any of the ui "tweak" registry hack tools. In TweakXP (MS Powertoys
component) the switch is right near the top of the list...

/daytripper
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 3:55:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lnce51hdtmg7k8b0oifafvocmhl0c9klnr@4ax.com...

> At least on 2K and XP, focus theft behavior is one that can be controlled
> using any of the ui "tweak" registry hack tools. In TweakXP (MS Powertoys
> component) the switch is right near the top of the list...

That helps a lot but doesn't entirely solve it.

DS
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 7:09:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.04.09.02.20.44.61407@att.bizzzz...
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:29:41 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:
>
>> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:D Fx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>>>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>>>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>>>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>>
>>> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>>> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>>> powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>>
>> I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
>> I want my computer to do that (run fast).
>
> Ok, I know of computers with a thousand "engines". So?


On your desktop?

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2005 8:00:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> >>Well, this is not really the point, is it? Both Intel and AMD want
to
> >>charge quite a bit more for these new DC chips to make up for their

> >>reduced yields. But it looks like one specific Intel-only vendor is

> >>going to throw a monkey wrench into Intel's plans for
profitability.
> >>
> >
> > I may not find Michael Dell to be an attractive role model, but I
do
> > think he understands what people will buy and at what price.
>
> Still missing the point. The point is that we're now going to see how

> much power and influence each corporation (Dell & Intel) has with
each
> other now that they've recommitted to exclusivity with each other
again.
> It would show which one really wanted the exclusivity deal more.
>
I don't think we're going to understand much about that relationship
from what appears as news. Anybody who has seen what has happened with
Walmart and its suppliers might be tempted to think that Dell would
like to deal with Intel in the same way. One difference is that Dell
isn't as financially secure as Walmart.

The important difference is that Dell and Intel really do need each
other. Intel needs Dell to figure out how to move product and actually
to do it. As to Dell needing Intel, I'm sure you're going to argue
that isn't obvious. For Dell, an Intel that can't make its numbers
would be the beginning of the end. I'll bet on Michael Dell
understanding that even if you wouldn't.


> >>If any revolution is needed in PC's it's get their prices down
much,
> >>much further. To the point where even the 3rd world can afford
them.
> >>
> >
> > Do you think PC's would really help the third world that much?
>
> Yes, absolutely. However, I don't think it's appropriate to sell PC
> technology to rice farmers and stuff. They should be concentrating on

> the emerging affluent members of the third world, such as China,
India,
> Southeast Asia, etc.
>
It is going to be a _much_ less profitable business for everyone, but
it will be interesting to watch...maybe. Think of the automobile
industry again.

RM
April 10, 2005 2:29:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:44:35 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>
>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BTR-66, for one. Mass-produced in Russia since mid-1960s up until now
with few changes. 8 wheels, 4 axles, 2 (two) big V-8 engines. One
engine drives odd axles, the other even ones. Even when one engine is
damaged, the vehicle is still operational. But then, it's an armored
personnel carrier, not your everyday commuter. More like a
specialized heavy-duty server than a regular user's desktop, to speak
of analogy.
;-)

>powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>
....snip...
>
>-- Robert
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2005 3:01:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <ZTr5e.2599$An2.1405@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.04.08.02.36.55.365047@att.bizzzz...
> >
> > There is no question that dual cores are a good thing on the desktop
> > (given that they're going to be "free"). The question is how many
> cores
> > are useful. That is, how many of those things in the process window
> can
> > be kept doing something interesting.
>
> Based on 20+ years of PC experience, I think it's safe to say that
> _one_ CPU core is useful in a desktop PC.

One is more useful than zero. Two is more useful than one. Three?
....but at the same price, why not?

> More? What have they (both
> of them :)  been using those dual-CPU Macs for?

Photoshop, video rendering, and prepress, AFAIK.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2005 3:04:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <sHH5e.3130$yq6.2890@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
horedson@earthlink.net says...
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.04.09.02.20.44.61407@att.bizzzz...
> > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:29:41 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:
> >
> >> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:D Fx5e.8856$c76.6562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
> >>>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
> >>>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
> >>>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
> >>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
> >>>
> >>> OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
> >>> two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
> >>> powerful engines than they really need or often use.
> >>
> >> I know of one with 4 engines ... think "Utah" and "Salt Flats".
> >> I want my computer to do that (run fast).
> >
> > Ok, I know of computers with a thousand "engines". So?
>
>
> On your desktop?

Do you drive only on the Utah Salt Flats?

--
Keith

>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 10, 2005 8:32:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>
>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>powerful engines than they really need or often use.

They just get vehicles with engines that have more cylinders V8+
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2005 3:50:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips lyon_wonder <lyon_wonder@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>>powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>
> They just get vehicles with engines that have more cylinders V8+

Yes, but I see the analogy for cylinders/size being issue
ports and execution units inside the CPU core. The Intel
Pentium4 (P7) is noticably deficient compared with AMD K7 or
even Intel P6, so needs more RPM to make up for low torque.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2005 5:01:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:_Yi6e.408$zq4.259@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips lyon_wonder <lyon_wonder@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>>>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>>>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>>>powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>>
>> They just get vehicles with engines that have more cylinders V8+
>
> Yes, but I see the analogy for cylinders/size being issue
> ports and execution units inside the CPU core. The Intel
> Pentium4 (P7) is noticably deficient compared with AMD K7 or
> even Intel P6, so needs more RPM to make up for low torque.


P6 feels like a big iron flathead six, Pentium 4 like a light aluminum V8.
(For the Brits: "aluminium").

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2005 6:17:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Hank Oredson <horedson@earthlink.net> wrote:
> P6 feels like a big iron flathead six, Pentium 4 like a
> light aluminum V8. (For the Brits: "aluminium").

Not quite. don't confuse clock with work per clock.

A P6 or K7 is more like a modern V6 while the Pentium 4 is like
a 4 cylinder that someone has revved to 10,000 rpm. They're both
powerful, but how they achieve it is very different.

-- Robert
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2005 1:44:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:

>Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't. Expect
>more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple cores
>- all very predictable).

I think that (commodity) dual cores were "predictable" about as much
as the (lack of) performance and the (excess of) power dissipation
issues that we (or at least Intel) have suddenly run-into were
"predictable". As it seems that many were caught by surprise by the
rather sudden appearance of these major difficulties, they obviously
weren't predictable to everyone...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2005 6:11:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:V6l6e.499$VA3.226@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Hank Oredson <horedson@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> P6 feels like a big iron flathead six, Pentium 4 like a
>> light aluminum V8. (For the Brits: "aluminium").
>
> Not quite. don't confuse clock with work per clock.

Wasn't ... in fact wasn't thinking about anything but the
sound the fan makes :-)

> A P6 or K7 is more like a modern V6 while the Pentium 4 is like
> a 4 cylinder that someone has revved to 10,000 rpm. They're both
> powerful, but how they achieve it is very different.

Yes, quite aware of the difference.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

>
> -- Robert
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2005 7:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Bitstring <0q2l51dcukecpdd7ggo40nssp96gjk6i9r@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> said
>keith wrote:
>
>>Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't. Expect
>>more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple cores
>>- all very predictable).
>
>I think that (commodity) dual cores were "predictable" about as much
>as the (lack of) performance and the (excess of) power dissipation
>issues that we (or at least Intel) have suddenly run-into were
>"predictable".

I think dual cores were much more predictable than that .. I've been
waiting for the damn things to appear ever since the x87 FPUs were
slurped up inside the CPU (i.e. a LONG time). I was surprised that AMD
put the memory controller on chip, but not that they (finally) came out
with the 'server on silicon' dual CPU. I'd be faintly surprised if they
go past 4x or 8x though .. anything seriously parallel is seriously hard
to program well.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2005 1:40:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:0q2l51dcukecpdd7ggo40nssp96gjk6i9r@4ax.com...
> keith wrote:
>
> >Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't.
Expect
> >more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see
multiple cores
> >- all very predictable).
>
> I think that (commodity) dual cores were "predictable" about as much
> as the (lack of) performance and the (excess of) power dissipation
> issues that we (or at least Intel) have suddenly run-into were
> "predictable". As it seems that many were caught by surprise by the
> rather sudden appearance of these major difficulties, they obviously
> weren't predictable to everyone...

They sure as hell weren't predictable to me, Chris. ;-(

And I was a well-experienced electronic design engineer when Intel
introduced this thing called a 4004. ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2005 1:40:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:40:10 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
wrote:

>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0q2l51dcukecpdd7ggo40nssp96gjk6i9r@4ax.com...
>> keith wrote:
>>
>> >Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't.
>Expect
>> >more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see
>multiple cores
>> >- all very predictable).
>>
>> I think that (commodity) dual cores were "predictable" about as much
>> as the (lack of) performance and the (excess of) power dissipation
>> issues that we (or at least Intel) have suddenly run-into were
>> "predictable". As it seems that many were caught by surprise by the
>> rather sudden appearance of these major difficulties, they obviously
>> weren't predictable to everyone...
>
>They sure as hell weren't predictable to me, Chris. ;-(
>
>And I was a well-experienced electronic design engineer when Intel
>introduced this thing called a 4004. ;-)
>

David Patterson has papers now nearly a decade old talking about
reaching a point of diminishing returns in more and more transistors
committed to a single core, with the obvious path being multiple cores
on a single die. That's different from the power dissipation problem,
of course, but multiple cores should have been forseeable, if the
exact timing wasn't.

RM
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2005 1:40:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:44:02 -0400, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:40:10 GMT, "Felger Carbon" <fmsfnf@jfoops.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:0q2l51dcukecpdd7ggo40nssp96gjk6i9r@4ax.com...
>>> keith wrote:
>>>
>>> >Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't.
>>Expect
>>> >more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see
>>multiple cores
>>> >- all very predictable).
>>>
>>> I think that (commodity) dual cores were "predictable" about as much
>>> as the (lack of) performance and the (excess of) power dissipation
>>> issues that we (or at least Intel) have suddenly run-into were
>>> "predictable". As it seems that many were caught by surprise by the
>>> rather sudden appearance of these major difficulties, they obviously
>>> weren't predictable to everyone...
>>
>>They sure as hell weren't predictable to me, Chris. ;-(
>>
>>And I was a well-experienced electronic design engineer when Intel
>>introduced this thing called a 4004. ;-)
>>
>
>David Patterson has papers now nearly a decade old talking about
>reaching a point of diminishing returns in more and more transistors
>committed to a single core, with the obvious path being multiple cores
>on a single die. That's different from the power dissipation problem,
>of course, but multiple cores should have been forseeable, if the
>exact timing wasn't.

Of course, Intel is much more affected by the current clock ceiling than
AMD. In fact AMD has quite a ways to go on clock speeds and they have the
power management in place well before they go there. Cool 'n' Quiet is
really quite amazing in its effect on CPU temp; SpeedStep may be just as
good but I haven;t seen a system yet which allows you to observe what's
going on.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2005 1:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>David Patterson has papers now nearly a decade old talking about
>reaching a point of diminishing returns in more and more transistors
>committed to a single core, with the obvious path being multiple cores
>on a single die. That's different from the power dissipation problem,
>of course, but multiple cores should have been forseeable, if the
>exact timing wasn't.

Of course, a big factor is what the market decides is the "right
price" for a CPU. As long as people think it's okay to spend $200 or
more on one chip (a large fraction of the entire system's price),
there's going to be the economics to produce "exotic" CPU's.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2005 1:14:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

>I think dual cores were much more predictable than that .. I've been
>waiting for the damn things to appear ever since the x87 FPUs were
>slurped up inside the CPU (i.e. a LONG time).

Well, if the price/perfomance of single-core CPU's could continue to
scale as well as they've done in the past, I think you'd be waiting a
lot longer yet. It would be cheaper for them to just throw more MHz
at the problem, which, for normal desktop PC's, isn't a bad way to go,
IMO (note this not an endorsement of the silly P4 design).
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2005 4:13:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <0q2l51dcukecpdd7ggo40nssp96gjk6i9r@4ax.com>,
chrisv@nospam.invalid says...
> keith wrote:
>
> >Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't. Expect
> >more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see multiple cores
> >- all very predictable).
>
> I think that (commodity) dual cores were "predictable" about as much
> as the (lack of) performance and the (excess of) power dissipation
> issues that we (or at least Intel) have suddenly run-into were
> "predictable".

Ok, both were predictable (and predicted). ;-)

> As it seems that many were caught by surprise by the
> rather sudden appearance of these major difficulties, they obviously
> weren't predictable to everyone...

The "problems" seen at 90nm were not due so much to power dissipation.
That issue was well known for some time. Everyone knew that at 90nm
things were going to cook, unless the voltage could be cranked way
down. If anything, the problem (with power) was that the voltage
couldn't be scaled back as much as wanted and still have any kind of
increase in performance.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2005 4:16:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <jkln51hg08nci2ge45e35b72gftu3bkaru@4ax.com>,
chrisv@nospam.invalid says...
> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
> >I think dual cores were much more predictable than that .. I've been
> >waiting for the damn things to appear ever since the x87 FPUs were
> >slurped up inside the CPU (i.e. a LONG time).
>
> Well, if the price/perfomance of single-core CPU's could continue to
> scale as well as they've done in the past, I think you'd be waiting a
> lot longer yet.

But we *knew* that that wasn't going to happen. Why do you think we
started seeing integrat4ed L2s? It was something to do with
transistors that pushed the curve out a generation or two. Caches only
solve so many ills though.

> It would be cheaper for them to just throw more MHz
> at the problem, which, for normal desktop PC's, isn't a bad way to go,
> IMO (note this not an endorsement of the silly P4 design).

Ok, how do you "just throw more MHz" at the problem. Remember, the
memory interface is the same. More MHz may not give much benefit, even
were it a "just".

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2005 4:18:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

In article <_8C6e.4354$yq6.1293@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
fmsfnf@jfoops.net says...
> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0q2l51dcukecpdd7ggo40nssp96gjk6i9r@4ax.com...
> > keith wrote:
> >
> > >Transistors are free. Figuring out what to do with them isn't.
> Expect
> > >more of the same thing (we've seen large caches, now we see
> multiple cores
> > >- all very predictable).
> >
> > I think that (commodity) dual cores were "predictable" about as much
> > as the (lack of) performance and the (excess of) power dissipation
> > issues that we (or at least Intel) have suddenly run-into were
> > "predictable". As it seems that many were caught by surprise by the
> > rather sudden appearance of these major difficulties, they obviously
> > weren't predictable to everyone...
>
> They sure as hell weren't predictable to me, Chris. ;-(


I told you that I saw multi-core chips coming at least six years ago.
I don't remember if I made those predictions on the NG though.

> And I was a well-experienced electronic design engineer when Intel
> introduced this thing called a 4004. ;-)

No, I didn't predict multi-core microprocessors in '70 either. ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2005 3:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:44:35 GMT, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid>
wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The question isn't how *I* use computers. The question is
>> how a typical user uses computers. The typical user will
>> buy more just as people bought more horsepower because
>> more is obviously always better? To some extent, yes.
>> But do take a look at the automobile industry.
>
>OK. With SMP or dual cores, the closest analogy is a car with
>two engines. I don't know of any, but people often want more
>powerful engines than they really need or often use.
>

Somewhat off topic, but relevant as analogy:

http://www.eliica.com/

To me it seems analogous to an 8-CPU server set up for gaming. (Zero to
60 in four seconds!)

>I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
>don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
>in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
>of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
>not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
>do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
>meet the defintion of "background".
>
>Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
>than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
>multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
>to the point to being required.
>
>-- Robert
>

I tend to agree with that -- but only for the present, when most users do
e-mail, word processing, a little photo-editing (probably with Elements or
PSPro), some Web surfing and video watching.

I think that when most users want to be able to do the "normal" things
with their PCs (e-mail, spreadsheets, etc.) while composing or editing a
video presentation, SMP will become a standard feature.

Perhaps a better analogy is skyscrapers. Adding more stories (CPU speed)
is becoming prohibitive for both technical and economic reasons. The obvious
answer is "SMB" -- side-by-side multiple buildings. ;-)

Chris
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 20, 2005 12:51:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:05:14 GMT, Christopher P. Winter
<chrisw20@chrisw20.best.vwh.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:44:35 GMT, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid>
>wrote:

>>I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
>>don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
>>in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
>>of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
>>not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
>>do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
>>meet the defintion of "background".
>>
>>Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
>>than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
>>multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
>>to the point to being required.
>>
>>-- Robert
>>
>
> I tend to agree with that -- but only for the present, when most users do
>e-mail, word processing, a little photo-editing (probably with Elements or
>PSPro), some Web surfing and video watching.

While there are a very few activities which are helped by multiple CPUs, I
don't see that I can do any two of the above-mentioned simultaneously.

> I think that when most users want to be able to do the "normal" things
>with their PCs (e-mail, spreadsheets, etc.) while composing or editing a
>video presentation, SMP will become a standard feature.

Again what two do you propose do do simultaneously? E.g., if I'm writing
an e-mail I can't edit a video presentation at the same time. Maybe if I
have some heavy-duty encoding or decoding app, which is basically running
in batch-mode, I'd like to do something interactively without having to
wait for time slices.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
April 22, 2005 2:27:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:51:40 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:05:14 GMT, Christopher P. Winter
> <chrisw20@chrisw20.best.vwh.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:44:35 GMT, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
>>>don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
>>>in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
>>>of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
>>>not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
>>>do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
>>>meet the defintion of "background".
>>>
>>>Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
>>>than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
>>>multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
>>>to the point to being required.
>>>
>>>-- Robert
>>>
>>
>> I tend to agree with that -- but only for the present, when most users do
>>e-mail, word processing, a little photo-editing (probably with Elements or
>>PSPro), some Web surfing and video watching.
>
> While there are a very few activities which are helped by multiple CPUs, I
> don't see that I can do any two of the above-mentioned simultaneously.

Rendering video while surfing? I'm sure photoshop can use multiple CPUs.

>> I think that when most users want to be able to do the "normal"
>> things
>>with their PCs (e-mail, spreadsheets, etc.) while composing or editing a
>>video presentation, SMP will become a standard feature.
>
> Again what two do you propose do do simultaneously?

You're arguing against multi-tasking. Many Win-nuts told OS/2 users that
multi-tasking wasn't necessary too (primarily because Woin couldn't
multi-task).

> E.g., if I'm
> writing an e-mail I can't edit a video presentation at the same time.
> Maybe if I have some heavy-duty encoding or decoding app, which is
> basically running in batch-mode, I'd like to do something interactively
> without having to wait for time slices.

How about simulated anealing while reading .chips? ;-) Of course when I
was doing such things I simply offloaded it to another system and kept
surfing. ;-)

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 22, 2005 5:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:27:33 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:51:40 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:05:14 GMT, Christopher P. Winter
>> <chrisw20@chrisw20.best.vwh.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:44:35 GMT, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
>>>>don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
>>>>in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
>>>>of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
>>>>not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
>>>>do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
>>>>meet the defintion of "background".
>>>>
>>>>Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
>>>>than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
>>>>multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
>>>>to the point to being required.
>>>>
>>>>-- Robert
>>>>
>>>
>>> I tend to agree with that -- but only for the present, when most users do
>>>e-mail, word processing, a little photo-editing (probably with Elements or
>>>PSPro), some Web surfing and video watching.
>>
>> While there are a very few activities which are helped by multiple CPUs, I
>> don't see that I can do any two of the above-mentioned simultaneously.
>
>Rendering video while surfing? I'm sure photoshop can use multiple CPUs.

In that case you don't need a 2nd user process running to benefit... one of
the "few".

>>> I think that when most users want to be able to do the "normal"
>>> things
>>>with their PCs (e-mail, spreadsheets, etc.) while composing or editing a
>>>video presentation, SMP will become a standard feature.
>>
>> Again what two do you propose do do simultaneously?
>
>You're arguing against multi-tasking. Many Win-nuts told OS/2 users that
>multi-tasking wasn't necessary too (primarily because Woin couldn't
>multi-task).

No, I'm not arguing against it - all I'm saying it ain't gonna help you to
do e-mail, word processing, composing and Web surfing, or any other
interactive task at the same time... at least it doesn't with my coarse
grain, time-sliced brain and one keyboard.:-)

>> E.g., if I'm
>> writing an e-mail I can't edit a video presentation at the same time.
>> Maybe if I have some heavy-duty encoding or decoding app, which is
>> basically running in batch-mode, I'd like to do something interactively
>> without having to wait for time slices.
>
>How about simulated anealing while reading .chips? ;-) Of course when I
>was doing such things I simply offloaded it to another system and kept
>surfing. ;-)

Sure, that's a heavy duty quasi-batch process - . Hmmm, I thought
simulated annealing had gone out of favor recently.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
April 23, 2005 3:25:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:51:37 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:27:33 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 08:51:40 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:05:14 GMT, Christopher P. Winter
>>> <chrisw20@chrisw20.best.vwh.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:44:35 GMT, Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I'm a fan of SMP (and by extention dual cores), but I really
>>>>>don't think they're much good for most users who use a computer
>>>>>in a single-threaded fashion. Yes, there's an obnoxious pile
>>>>>of system processes, but most of these should be blocked and
>>>>>not eat up enough of the CPU that the user notice. If they
>>>>>do, then the problem is with these processes which no longer
>>>>>meet the defintion of "background".
>>>>>
>>>>>Most users will be much happier with double clockspeed rather
>>>>>than two CPUs. Not so servers where the inherent heavy
>>>>>multithreading and high interrupt load makes SMP attractive
>>>>>to the point to being required.
>>>>>
>>>>>-- Robert
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I tend to agree with that -- but only for the present, when most users do
>>>>e-mail, word processing, a little photo-editing (probably with Elements or
>>>>PSPro), some Web surfing and video watching.
>>>
>>> While there are a very few activities which are helped by multiple CPUs, I
>>> don't see that I can do any two of the above-mentioned simultaneously.
>>
>>Rendering video while surfing? I'm sure photoshop can use multiple CPUs.
>
> In that case you don't need a 2nd user process running to benefit... one of
> the "few".

Sure, but it's an activity that can benefit from multiple CPUs. As I
indicated, I used to do it (still do to a point) with multiple *systems*,
but a single system has its benefits too (though I don't see dual-CPU
laptops on the near horizon ;-).

>>>> I think that when most users want to be able to do the "normal"
>>>> things
>>>>with their PCs (e-mail, spreadsheets, etc.) while composing or editing
>>>>a video presentation, SMP will become a standard feature.
>>>
>>> Again what two do you propose do do simultaneously?
>>
>>You're arguing against multi-tasking. Many Win-nuts told OS/2 users
>>that multi-tasking wasn't necessary too (primarily because Woin couldn't
>>multi-task).
>
> No, I'm not arguing against it - all I'm saying it ain't gonna help you
> to do e-mail, word processing, composing and Web surfing, or any other
> interactive task at the same time... at least it doesn't with my coarse
> grain, time-sliced brain and one keyboard.:-)

It helps you do those things if you have a CPU hog process running as well.

>>> E.g., if I'm
>>> writing an e-mail I can't edit a video presentation at the same time.
>>> Maybe if I have some heavy-duty encoding or decoding app, which is
>>> basically running in batch-mode, I'd like to do something
>>> interactively without having to wait for time slices.
>>
>>How about simulated anealing while reading .chips? ;-) Of course when
>>I was doing such things I simply offloaded it to another system and kept
>>surfing. ;-)
>
> Sure, that's a heavy duty quasi-batch process - . Hmmm, I thought
> simulated annealing had gone out of favor recently.

The place-n-route algorithms used for FPGAs at least were SA. I did use
the past tense. ;-) I haven't looked recently though.

--
Keith
!