Intel faces pricing dilemma from Dell

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/2005/04/07/0407automarketscan13.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=

Yousuf Khan
40 answers Last reply
More about intel faces pricing dilemma dell
  1. 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/2005/04/07/0407automarketscan13.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=
    >>
    >
    >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 ;-)
  2. 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/2005/04/07/0407automarketscan13.html?partner=yahoo&referrer=
    >>>
    >>
    >>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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.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).
  7. 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
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:DFx5e.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
  9. 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
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:DFx5e.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
  11. 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:DFx5e.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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    news:pan.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:DFx5e.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
  17. 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
  18. 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
    >
  19. 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:pan.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
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    In article <sHH5e.3130$yq6.2890@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    horedson@earthlink.net says...
    > "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
    > news:pan.2005.04.09.02.20.44.61407@att.bizzzz...
    > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:29:41 +0000, Hank Oredson wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
    > >> news:DFx5e.8856$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

    >
    >
  21. 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+
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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...
  26. 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
    >
  27. 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.
  28. 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. ;-)
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. 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).
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel Dual Core Dell