Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the CPU industry dead?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 21, 2005 3:48:35 PM

So what is going on with the CPU industry (AMD & Intel)? Is the FX57 it? That is as fast a CPU as that can be made by either of the big companies?

Dual core is good idea, but again pretty useless for 95% of the applications today, with slower clock speeds, and will be years before games are developed with threads in mind (aka multiple CPUs).

It has been years and the performance improvements of CPU has really just stalled and no sign of any improvements in the future. What happened to the "we can go to 8Ghz with the 90nm process..." yada yada yada. The industry used to provide a 2X improvement in performance each year, now we see 10% improvements each year.

And the motherboards are just as guilty of the lack of pure performance improvement along with the ridiculous memory game -- anyone can increase the clock cycle delay and claim PC8000 RAM, bandwidth numbers may look good but latency is ridiculous -- where are the real technology improvements?

Is the industry really just dead cause I don't see dual core technology as getting us anything more than what we currently can do (one 2 core CPU rather than 2 physical CPUs).

The only tech industry that shows signs of improvement comes from Graphics processors (nVidia and ATI).

Has the industry just hit a technological wall (laws of physics) that engineers can't seem to overcome? Were the claims of 8Ghz processors really just nothing more than marketing BS?

Is the mass migration of jobs to bio-tech a true indication of the state of the tech industry? Have AMD/Intel out sourced so much so that innovation is no longer possible?

Rob.

More about : cpu industry dead

September 21, 2005 5:48:56 PM

1) It was 2x the performance every 18 months (1.5 years).

2) We have been consistantly getting, up till the past 6 months, that figure, not the 10% that you're spewing.

3) DDR2 will become the better performer over DDR, but it'll take another 6 months. This is why AMD hasn't switched to DDR2 yet.

4) 65nm won't improve performance outright, but will increase the efficiency of the chips.

5) Intel's Pentium M is a good marvel in technology. Just as the late PIII's were better than the early P4's, we're seeing the same effect now. But rest assured, as they move off the NB arch. and blend the two chips together, we'll see the P-M successor take off far beyond what P-4s provide.

6) For 90% of what you use your computer for, you won't have a single application being CPU limited. This is why switching to dual-cores is now a good thing, as people have many moe processes running at once than they use to.

7) Dual-core chips end up costing the user far less than trying to set up a true dual-CPU platform for 95% of the performance.

8) Read up more on the GPU industry. The only reason that they're releasing better chips is that they keep getting bigger and using more power (i.e. Just what the P4 did). I'm guessing that both ATI and nVidia only have one more series of chips to release (Radeon X2xxx and GF 8xxx respectively), before they have to go completely back to the drawing board an come up with something brand new.
September 21, 2005 6:00:15 PM

8ghz? wow that's quite a jump.
Related resources
September 21, 2005 6:18:27 PM

1) ok, I agree with that
2) FX55 release Oct '04, FX57 Aug '05 about 10% difference in performance
3) DDR2 is nothing new and it has NOT shown to be a huge performance benefit like Intel hoped it would be.
4) smaller is better, agree
5) pentium M does nothing to push performance top end
6) you have no clue what I use my computer for nor most folks, but games are CPU limited, every app is CPU limited -- trust me, developers can bring current CPU's to their knees if we add all the features people want (I'm a developer I know, we code to what hardware base).
7) Dual core is good technology, but it isn't NEW and it isn't showing 2X performance gains over current 2 CPU systems on the few applications that use multiple processors.
8) No, GPU are getting better because they are running more video memory, faster video memory, higher bandwidth, and incorparte more DX functions in hardware (which will always be faster) and there is still plenty of room for GPU's to do more and do it better. Sure the more transistors add the more the power requirements but so what?

Progress for motherboards and CPU's have virtually come to a halt and banking on dual core to "save the industry" is a BIG mistake -- maybe they are hoping it'll buy them time but the big bottle neck has always been the motherboard and memory -- Intel/AMD should be figuring out how to get around those limitations before they spend all their time and resources on dual cores (solutions that already exist today) and HOPE (big leap of faith there) more developers start coding CPU specific threaded applications/games.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by V8VENOM on 09/21/05 02:21 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 21, 2005 7:48:23 PM

1) 8GHz? Where on earth did you pull that out of? (As if we didn't know...)

2) Intel hoped for better performance from DDR2? Again, where are you pulling <i>that</i> out of? No one ever thought that DDR2 would perform better. It was simply more idiot proof and lower voltage.

3) Hey, I'm glad that the insane GHz race is finally slowing back down to a normal progression. It was really getting out of hand. I've enjoyed having my NWC2.6 with DC-DDR400 run things quite well for years now. ;) 

4) I'm not sure what you're expecting from motherboard manus, but with the amount of onboard devices jam-packed into mobos these days, it sure seems like they're getting better and better to me. :o 

5) So long as the clock speed is sufficient, I openly welcome multicore CPUs. They're certainly no panacea, but they're still better than single cores.

So in conclusion, the CPU industry isn't dead. It's changing. (And if performance per watt becomes the new standard, then it's definately changing for the better.)

:evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The <font color=red><b>Devil</b></font color=red> is in the details.</i>
@ 198K of 200K!
September 21, 2005 8:30:34 PM

1) 8Ghz was Intel's early promises which they seemed to have completely forgotten

2) DDR2 does perform better in terms of bandwidth, but there again at the cost of latency and the real performance difference is barely noticeable (again thanks to increase latency). Idiot proof?? How is DDR less idiot proof?

3) Why would anyone be glad processors are not getting any faster but costing just as much?

4) better motherboard designs -- 200Mhz is a joke, tossing more components on the motherboard has nothing to do with making the motherboard more efficient, faster, and consume less power. There appears to be ZERO true R&D at most of these motherboard manufacturers, they just gather up the chipsets and put them together and give features to overclockers, but no actual progress is made it terms of real significant performance.

FX57 will run circles around an X2 in 99% of the games on the market. It is changing industry, but only to find ways to give you less performance and get more out of your wallet. I mean seriously, the industry says we can't come up with more efficient processor designs so lets just reduce the clock speed and give'm two processors -- geee, not exactly innovation!! Good money making scheme maybe.

Bottleneck is not the CPU, it is the memory, the bus (aka the motherboards) -- focus the attention there. The only real interesting concept in the XBOX 360 is that they did realize that the connection between the various components is the big performance problem and they designed a better "mothterboard" or more accurately "main board" that will bring CPU, Video, memory all together with considerable peformance benefits.
September 21, 2005 11:44:28 PM

Moores law is twice the # of transistors/chip every 18 months. Going to dual core achieves that.
What mobos can do is more based on chipset and chip, than anything mobo makers have control over.
The brick wall that is leakage current has already met it's match. Thing is, Intel has done a rethink on performance, and seen that just speed is a limiting route.
Using strained FD SOI and 65 nanos, the prescott could probably reach 8ghz within a year. Then they would have about 20% more perf than today's chips. Intel knows they need to work on IPC, as well as better chipsets, and buses. They also need v-regs and caps that can handle higher frequencies. Memory that can handle true 400 mhz speed are also a need.
All those things will be devoloped, but why push, when there is $ to be made by going slow.
September 22, 2005 2:11:27 PM

The problem with going slow is keeping interest and making people want to upgrade. Also, developers can add more features and increase CPU loads to software (games or other apps) that we'd just not code now because their isn't enough mainstream processing power to handle it.

Also, competition -- leave the door open and someone will come in.

CPUs are being seriously choked up by current motherboard and memory designs. It's like putting a Ferrari V12 motor in a Yugo, extremely power engine but a chassis that can't handle it.

Point being, these areas (motherboards/memory) should have been address long ago (by AMD and Intel) and certainly long before the "lets pull a fast one on the consumer and see if they fall for it" dual core BS.
September 22, 2005 2:46:08 PM

Quote:
1) 8Ghz was Intel's early promises which they seemed to have completely forgotten

Not only do I not recall any such claim made by Intel, but I can't even find anything supporting your statement. The closest that I can find is <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6813" target="_new">this</A>, which is, of course, a joke. So either provide evicence to support your claim or stop pulling things out of your bum.

Quote:
Idiot proof?? How is DDR less idiot proof?

There have been a lot of people who have had problems with DDR1, especially when using dual-channel DDR400. DDR2 was designed to be less problematic.

Quote:
3) Why would anyone be glad processors are not getting any faster but costing just as much?

Why would anyone be glad that their investment isn't rapidly depreciating in value? <sarcasm><i>Gee, I can't think of a single reason.</i></sarcasm>

Quote:
4) better motherboard designs -- 200Mhz is a joke, tossing more components on the motherboard has nothing to do with making the motherboard more efficient, faster, and consume less power.

And the FSB speed has nothing to do with motherboard manufacturers. Nor, for that matter, are the busses connecting NB to SB. Those are all determined by chipset and CPU manufacturers. Just as the vast majority of energy usage is not in the hands of motherboard manus either. So if you're going to complain about something, at least get your facts straight first.

Quote:
FX57 will run circles around an X2 in 99% of the games on the market.

And games are, of course, the <i>entire</i> market. For that matter, gamers <i>always</i> deactivate <i>all</i> (posible) other processes while running their game like hardware reviewers do.

V8VENOM, try getting your facts straight for a change.

:evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The <font color=red><b>Devil</b></font color=red> is in the details.</i>
@ 198K of 200K!
September 22, 2005 3:10:19 PM

The claims were posted in various PC magazines -- do I have the specific references in those magazines, no -- I could dig them up if I really wanted to, but I just don't care as it is not that relevant.

So give me the details on how DDR2 is less problematic (or is this coming out of YOUR bum)? I haven't seen anyone report problems with DDR nor DDR2 other than the usual idiots that try to mix and match.

News flash, a PC is NOT an investment -- never has been, never will be. This discussion isn't about depreciation, its about lack of innovation and taking consumers for a costly ride down a street they don't need be going down.

You really need to think about what you're saying cause you just ain't there yet:

"...And the FSB speed has nothing to do with motherboard manufacturers. Nor, for that matter, are the busses connecting NB to SB. Those are all determined by chipset and CPU manufacturers."

Geez, pull your British head out of the ground -- too much rugby for you or something or are those 5 day cricket matches take a toll on your brain? The current best chipset is made by nVidia. I'm sorry but you really are just not too clever -- so now your trying to tell me that Intel/AMD dictated to the motherboard manufacturers that they want a 200Mhz bus -- you think for a second that Intel/AMD would say "no I don't want a 400Mhz bus nor a 800Mhz bus nor a 2Ghz bus...that's just too fast" oh please, get real!

Try getting your head out of your bum so you can apply common sense and logic.

No wonder people think of this place as a joke with the logically impaired like you running around make pathetic attempts at being knowledgable.
September 22, 2005 4:03:11 PM

I think the real lack of innovation is in the hands of us the consumer... (bear with me, i'll explain this bold statement).

except for the small group of extreme core gamers / developers / graphics artits and renderors. what do most people who use computers do? Word? excell? internet? maybe MP3 ripping for their ipods. on the most part. none of these tasks are very intensive on the CPU, Graphics cards or devices in the system. you can make due with hardware around the first P4 late P3 era to do all of those at adequate speeds. Because of this, 70% (estimated) of the entire PC market has absolutely NO need to continue advancing considering that current generation can do all of that at insane speeds anyways.

so whats driving the innovations. the small 30% of the market who WANTS the faster and better. well, thats not much of an incentive to push that much further anymore. at a time when an upgrade in software meant you needed a new computer just to handle it you routinely had the companies churning out faster and faster technology just to match what was comming out from the software side. When Windows 95 came out. virtually EVERYONE had to buy new hardware just to keep up with it. when win2k came out, the same thing happened again. hardware had to push further and further to take advantage of it and faster and faster. but when XP for example came out. you can run it just as smoothely as you could 2k. it did more and everything 2k could do on the same hardware (more or less). we've now had counteless word and internet applications come out. and none of the newer ones have needed anymore processing than the previous generation even with all the new features. they're just not pushing the envelope anymore.

the only thing that does is Gaming for the most part. Notice how virtually ALL new technology that comes out computer wise is almost entirely gaming related. Maybe with the occasional Developer in mind or 3d renderer.

it's a matter of fact that for the majority of the world.. they just don't need new innovation.
September 22, 2005 4:04:49 PM

Quote:
but I just don't care as it is not that relevant.

Or more likely, you just simply <i>can't</i> because you're making it up.

Quote:
So give me the details on how DDR2 is less problematic

Hello? Is this thing on? I already <i>did</i>. DDR1, especially dual channel at a 200MHz clock (400MHz marketspeak), was quite prone to errors on many motherboards. (Ten times so when you had low latencies.) Even AMD's ondie memory controller was having problems with this for a while. (Fortunately core improvements have fixed that.) Any idiot who has kept abreast of computers even in just the last year knows that much.

And DDR2 has been designed to not be nearly so problematic. Hence <i>why</i> it can clock higher. (And hence why people complain about its performance, as latencies were a result of DDR2's changes to fix DDR1's failings.)

The simple fact that I even have to explain this to you proves that you don't even know enough to debate what you're talking about.

Quote:
News flash, a PC is NOT an investment

A profitable investment? Hardly ever. But a notable expendature of money into a tool? Definately. And how long that tool is useful is a factor that is very important to many people. If performance increases run wild, a PC loses its value quickly. If performance increases are slow and steady, a PC retains its value well. It's all monumentally simple, which probably explains why you can't seem to grasp the concept.

Quote:
and taking consumers for a costly ride down a street they don't need be going down.

So you're saying that it is <i>better</i> for the industry to push frequent upgrades so that the consumer to <i>needs</i> to constantly spend mony to keep their PC useful? As compared to the industry advancing more slowly so that a consumer's first expendature will keep their PC useful for a long period of time? <sarcasm><i>Yeah, I can really see how retaining value is "<font color=red>a costly ride down a street they don't need be going down</font color=red>".</i></sarcasm> Come on. You're just pissy because you don't have an 8GHz P4. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's best monetarily for consumers.

Quote:
so now your trying to tell me that Intel/AMD dictated to the motherboard manufacturers that they want a 200Mhz bus -- you think for a second that Intel/AMD would say "no I don't want a 400Mhz bus nor a 800Mhz bus nor a 2Ghz bus...that's just too fast"

You see, here again you prove your ignorance. Just what good exactly would it do anyone to have a motherboard officially support a FSB that no CPU can reach? Okay, so you can run your faster RAM. You've got all this speed. Except that no CPU will work in that configuration. <sarcasm><i>Great idea! Maybe next we can make a 64x PCI-E slot on the mobo for all of those graphics cards that only go as high as 16x!</i></sarcasm>

Quote:
No wonder people think of this place as a joke with the logically impaired like you running around make pathetic attempts at being knowledgable.

Coming from you and your obviously impaired knowledge, I'll take that as a compliment. Maybe if you didn't sound like such an idiot your futile attempt at an insule might actually mean something. :o 

:evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The <font color=red><b>Devil</b></font color=red> is in the details.</i>
@ 198K of 200K!
September 22, 2005 4:16:24 PM

Quote:
the only thing that does is Gaming for the most part. Notice how virtually ALL new technology that comes out computer wise is almost entirely gaming related. Maybe with the occasional Developer in mind or 3d renderer.

Actually, I think you're doing an awful lot of industries a great disservice in neglecting them. The scientific community (and with it the academic community) in general need more processing power a heck of a lot more than games do. So too do graphical artists, any engineer that uses CAD software, and the list goes on and on.

For that matter, when was the last time that you saw a game that didn't run on three year old (or older) hardware? The only gamers that actually push are the small percentage of enthusiasts.

So while I can in general agree with a lot of what you say, I have to suggest that your point of view is still missing a bit of perspective.

Now, that said, let's take your ideal to it's ultimate source: the consumer. What percentage of consumers out there are buying the cheapest systems that they can? Now let's wonder why companies like Intel and AMD aren't seeing the need to push for higher clockspeeds... Simply, if the market was there, they'd have made it a priority. They'd spend the extra R&D to overcome their obstacles, because if the market were there, they'd be making that money back and then some. But it isn't there, so it isn't profitable, so they don't bother.

:evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The <font color=red><b>Devil</b></font color=red> is in the details.</i>
@ 198K of 200K!
September 22, 2005 4:25:59 PM

phoenix thats basically what i mean. lol. look at the reasons "WHY" and it's not so important. but the target isn't there for the fastest super duper for the makers anymore.

the majority of people now don't care about pushing the speed envelope. they've realized they hit the speeds they need and went waoooooh. it's costing us too much electricity to run! it's causing too much heat! it's too expensive

the companies are now trying to find ways to minimize all those rather than pushing the performance barrier. there just isnt the market now for pushing the speed barrier anymore.
September 22, 2005 4:33:05 PM

Oh good grief -- the wall of stupidity. You started the insular "bum" comments so in keeping with the level at which you choose to intercourse I'm returning your efforts in a way that seems to match your personality.

This is NOT a discussion about investments nor depreciation nor being able to keep up with change and progression of technology. It is a discussion about the lack of progress in areas that are desparately needed to unlock the true performance of current CPUs. This is afterall a Hardware forum where new tech is what drives the existance of this place.

Ok so lets put advancement of technology on hold so you can get some depreciation out of your PC. Maybe we should just stop doing all research of any kind so that costs remain the same and nothing changes -- think beyond your wallet.

I see ZERO tech in your DDR vs. DDR2 and the "idiot proof factor" -- is this some reality TV show you fell for? I hear the Simpsons is big in the UK.
September 22, 2005 4:52:34 PM

This discussion is not about what "most" people use their computer for. This is a tech forum (or supposed to be). Also, I'd disagree with you on Game vs. Other applications percentage of sales -- last I recall the Game market sales were considerably higher than other application sales (60% for games and 40% non-game) -- XBOX has shifted some of the gaming market but it is still a much larger market overall. Of course when Vista/Longhorn is release with it's new 3D interface it will require more CPU power and graphics performance.

But I do find it strange that when I go to Tom's Hardware many of the discussions end up being about money, cost to keep up, and best bang for the buck and people suggesting that technology should slow down. What's next?? Discussions about religion?
September 22, 2005 5:05:34 PM

Quote:
there just isnt the market now for pushing the speed barrier anymore.

Pretty much, this market is dying, especially now that dualcore CPUs are coming out. In the past a large consumer of fast PCs was from the market that was replacing an expensive worstation with a cheaper SOHO box. Generally, this market has multithreaded software (and is more interested in multitasking) so now that this market has dualcore CPUs, they don't really need to push for faster and faster CPUs anymore.

So SOHO isn't pushing for faster processors, and a lot of 'cheap workstation' market is happier with dualcore than with faster CPUs. So the few people left that still need faster processors for their singlethreaded applications just don't make up enough of a market to convince Intel or AMD to bother trying very hard.

Besides, we can only keep pushing speed before the electrical and heating requirements just become flat out ludicrous. (As if they aren't already.)

So in general, I agree with you. Far more consumers are concerned about cost (initial price and cost to run the hardware) than about speed these days.

:evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The <font color=red><b>Devil</b></font color=red> is in the details.</i>
@ 198K of 200K!
September 22, 2005 5:34:39 PM

Quote:
so in keeping with the level at which you choose to intercourse I'm returning your efforts in a way that seems to match your personality.

Funny that you don't consider the possibility that my comments were an intentional mirror of your initial delivered level of intelligence and knowledge, but that in fact you're mirroring mine. <b><font color=red>**ROFL**</font color=red></b> That's rich.

Well, for your edification, this is in fact the case. Had you come in with respect and knowledge you would have recieved a much different response. So all that you have percieved in myself so far is in fact quite simply a mirror of <i>you</i>.

Hell, for that matter, I'm not even British, mate.

Quote:
This is NOT a discussion about investments nor depreciation nor being able to keep up with change and progression of technology.

That's funny, because here I was all under the impression that business decisions were driven by market needs. Intel and AMD are businesses, are they not? And it is in their best interests to cater to the needs of the majority, is it not? And since the majority <i>don't</i> need 8GHz P4s yet...

Quote:
This is afterall a Hardware forum where new tech is what drives the existance of this place.

If that's what you think then you obviously haven't got a clue. New tech is maybe at best 1/4 of THGC's topics. At <i>least</i> half is free tech support and advice. And I'd dare say that another good 25% is social. That's what makes THGC far more interesting than most tech forums. (And explains why you, with your extremely limited perception, just don't seem to fit in.)

Quote:
Ok so lets put advancement of technology on hold so you can get some depreciation out of your PC. Maybe we should just stop doing all research of any kind so that costs remain the same and nothing changes -- think beyond your wallet.

Funny that you take things to an extreme that no one has even so much as suggested. As I've said repeatedly, the most ideal point is a reasonable and steady progression. And that's exactly what we have, and it benefits the majority quite well.

Quote:
I see ZERO tech in your DDR vs. DDR2 and the "idiot proof factor"

And I still see zero proof of your 8GHz claims. If you aren't bothered to provide any, why should I? The only difference is that you can easily search for articles explaining the improvements of DDR2 over DDR, where as no search that I've done supports your 8GHz claim.

But flat out proof aside, at least I have logic on my side. For if the advantage of DDR2 was not to remove stability problems as it clocked higher and higher, then what, pray tell, <i>was</i> the point of it? Quite simply, DDR1 was becoming very problematic as clock speeds increased. So, to make it so that any idiot could install memory into their system without having to play with voltages and timings in the hopes of getting things stable, DDR2 was created. Or do you have some interesting new theory for that based on The Simpsons, which you seem to like so much.

:evil:  یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ :evil: 
<i>The <font color=red><b>Devil</b></font color=red> is in the details.</i>
@ 198K of 200K!
September 22, 2005 6:06:46 PM

Good luck with your mission to slow progress down -- you're the perfect sucker, Intel/AMD's marketing department value your input.

Tell ya what, I'll give you 2X $5 and you give me one $20.

I didn't realize this was a social club -- but it does smell of a religion (or should I say Intelligent design) -- so yeah I probably don't fit in (oh what will I do).

Baaa Baaa Baaa -- the sheep
September 22, 2005 7:26:26 PM

I thought you may have had a point, but it's quickly degenerated into a feces-flinging match.

You wanted to know <b>why</b> correct? Well, slvr offered a perfectly plausible analysis of <b>why</b> Intel and AMD haven't felt the need to push out "8 GHz" CPUs... but for some reason you just can't accept it.

At their core, Intel and AMD are <b>businesses</b>. Now, why do businesses exist? If you guessed to make money, then congratulations... you just passed economics 101. They only have so much money to spend on R & D; if they exceed their budgets with little to no return on the investment, they <b>lose</b> money. That's not good for a business... but I'm sure you already knew that, right?

So, to please you, Intel and AMD should bankrupt themselves in the hope that they will magically crank out an "8 GHz" CPU. What you fail to realize is that if the company puts itself out of business trying to reach "8 GHz", then you <b>still</b> won't get your "8 GHz" CPU.

You like to throw the word logic around like some sort of Spock wannabe... but when presented with it, you ignore it.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
September 22, 2005 8:13:26 PM

Degeneration started with the "bum" comments from slvr_phoenix which he continue to evolve on that path of degeneration. So understand the source of the degeneration. Logical point #1.

Oil companies are making record profits cause they're in the business to make money. But consumers ultimately decide -- just as I have a Hybrid for my daily driver so I don't feed OPEC's thurst for my money as much.

Last I checked on economics, the consumer decides what they do and don't want. X2 is NOT giving the consumer anything new and in fact is slower but is costing the consumer more. This business model Intel and AMD have jumped on is based on conviencing the consumer they need X2 because all future software will support multiple processors. The reality is, no software developers are jumping on coding CPU thread specific games/applications.

Combining two processors onto one waffer and turning down the clock cycles is to say the least primitive and certainly is NOT a challenge for either Intel or AMD. It's like going to a local grocery store and getting the 2/$5 deals because they need to clear the selves of the old crap.

So you drop $900 on the fastest X2 AMD 64 (2.2Ghz) or $400 on 2.2Ghz AMD 64. They both run most (95%) of the games/applications at about the same performance, you've just paid $500 more for the hope that in 2+ years developers will have coded your favorite games/apps for true multi-processor support (something they could have done long ago as multi-processor systems have been around for a long time now).

So now you think application/game developers will start to increase their development life cycle (yes boys and girls coding mutliple threaded CPU specific code is more difficult, much more difficult and it will impact cost to produce the software -- hence why you don't see much of it about).

So you have this dead CPU doing nothing much at all and you've spent $500 for the privelage.

So you take a good hard look at the economics involved is AMD business model, Intel's, and the software developers.

Like I've said there isn't much R&D in dual core. What is need is faster connections between all the components, true RAM performance increases, this is what I would to see for my consumer $$$. Cause right now, if I want a second CPU I can just buy a 2nd CPU -- my choice. What I want for my money and what I'm willing to pay for faster CPU's, faster memory, faster motherboard, faster interconnections to those components on the motherboard.

If AMD & Intel can't afford the R&D, then they have effective ended their future as a company. Maybe they're just trying to buy time in a bad tech economy and hope, but either way, I'm not spend $500 extra on something that isn't useful in 95% of the cases with no guarantee it will be useful.
September 22, 2005 8:36:02 PM

You're speaking as if you're a typical user with typical needs; when the truth is, you're far from typical.

Most users are quite satisfied with a Celeron 2.8 GHz. The vast majority of people that use computers don't need the innovation you're suggesting. Computers <i>are</i> an investment... especially for corporations. They purchase computers to improve employee productivity. Once you hit a certain "wall", so to speak, you can keep buying faster and faster computers... but it won't do anything to increase prodcuctivity. Hence, "8 GHz" computers would be a difficult sell to these customers. Corporate users are the IT industry's bread and butter... they will always be catered to before anyone else.

Now, your average-Joe typical home user is your second-largest market segment. These users browse the web, email, chat, download MP3s and perhaps play the occasional game. Will these customers benefit from an "8 GHz" computer? Not likely. As long as the computer they have does everything they want / need it to do... they will hang on to that computer. Building a faster computer won't burn CDs or DVDs any faster... and it definately won't improve the speed of web-browsing / file downloading.

Now we have you. You are an enthusiast. (Well I am too... but since you're the one questioning the lack of innovation, I'll address you) You make up the smallest market segment in the industry. Now while this market can be extremely lucrative and profitable... you won't make enough money to remain in business by catering only to your smallest market segment.

When most people want to spend $599.00 on an entire system and not just on one single component (be it CPU or video card or whatever), it just doesn't make sense for companies to develop tech there isn't a market for. With shrinking profits and lower market demand... innovation suffers.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
September 23, 2005 12:12:52 AM

Let's take a look at a "typical user"
He's watching the latest joke in his in box. His computer is downloading the latest data sheets for Sony's new wega monster tv. It's also running one of nortons regular antivirus checks. His task tray takes up 1/4 of the screen. Adaware would tell him he has more than 400 spy files, if he knew about it. He's wondering why it's taking so long to render the presentation his boss wants.
Tell me this guy would be better off with a faster single core than he would be with a dual core system.
Quote:
I'm a developer I know, we code to what hardware base

So excuse me if I figure that you have been saddled with the imposible task of making your product dual core compliant, and are just venting.
September 23, 2005 12:49:12 AM

Any more racial comments?

(\__/)
(='.'=) <A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
(")_(")
September 23, 2005 1:12:01 AM

Just been reading through this thread and out of curiosity put "8ghz intel" into google just to see if any thing would come up ..... and wadaya know!

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6813" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6813&lt;/A>
<A HREF="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch2002122001..." target="_new">http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch2002122001...;/A>

Admittedly it is from the erm .... ever reliable source ..... the inquirer and is referring to a special project being run in conjunction with NASA but still there's your reference to 8ghz.

Edit:
Sorry I see one of you did actually find that article above so much in this thread i missed it!!!

<font color=blue>Stupid bug.......you go squish now!</font color=blue> <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by poncho on 09/23/05 12:20 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 23, 2005 12:47:20 PM

Endyem

argument against your case though. look at all you're listing... as a manager, I wouldnt want my employees doing all that

they're at work. ALL they should be doing is work. not downloading tech specs or a joke or what not.. the majority of employees where i work, need nothing more than a 2.5ish celeron. what do they have open?

a web browser or two. Excell maybe. Word with a few resume's and Lotus Notes for Database searches.... and they can run all fine on a 2 - 2.5 ghz computer.

THIS is the majority of the true workforce. Clerical work that does not require rendering and stuff. don't get me wrong, there are cetain fields that need it. (We place engineers and CAD designers, they need it at their work) but the majority of this company will never need a processor capable of running 12312 tasks at once.

you may argue that this seems a very short sighted view. like Gates "you'll never need mroe than 640K", but in the mean time with the current forecast of computing they won't. all End user work software for the most part has stopped pushing the technology.

Where we notice the push is needed. More and More applications are centralizing onto a server. with databases becomming mroe and more critical and bigger and bigger. it's not the end user needing the better performance, but the servers.

For example. We Currently use a Lotus Domino based database. each client ran a lotus client software and when queries were submitted ran like ahog to get them done (even with the server doing most of the work). We're replacing it with an SQL based database application. the client for the new software takes 1/2 the resources the old one did. but the server software takes a good 5x the esources.

Thanksfully though it looks like the major companies realise that the business market for servers isnt diminishing and there's still a big push for faster innovation there
September 23, 2005 2:46:04 PM

Dual core compliant?? That has no meaning in the context presented -- one codes software to make use of multiple CPU, there is no "compliance". Any software is "compliant" with dual core CPUs (old or new).

One: The example you presented are several applications not ONE application -- in YOUR example you are hoping the OS will managed each applications thread (or threads). WinXP is notorious stupid and is a VERY poor manager of application threads. WinXP may or may not apply those application threads to the appropriate CPU.

Two: when developing a threaded application the developer needs to look at how (and even if) running separate threads for tasks required can be of benefit -- if the nature of the applicaiton is to wait for thread X to finish before thread Y can start, then multiple CPUs isn't gonna help at all.

Three: nobody can claim they know what the typical user does. If you can make these claims you'd be the most valuable marketing person on this planet.

Now assuming the application is conceptually capable of having multiple threads, then developer must manage those threads and also manage the CPU those threads are executed on. The Key being the developer manages the CPU assignment of threads NOT the OS -- letting the OS do the assignment could (and does) result in very little improvement of performance. So now the developer has the task of assigning threads to specific CPUs and then must coordinate the completion of those threads. Also, debugging multi-threaded applications is considerably more involved than a standard linear coded application.

Summary:
1. WinXP is really bad at managing threads on separate CPUs
2. Development time for CPU specific threaded code will increase (and the costs)
3. The application needs to be conceptually capable of making use of CPU specific threads (more time in specification/design and again more cost)

The bottom line is that those apps are gonna take longer to produce and cost more. If AMD/Intel think they can go into cruise mode for the next 2-5 years hoping software developers start coding "real" multiple CPU support then they are gonna be in a world of financial hurt. AMD/Intel need to work on unlocking the true potential of their CPUs if they want to survive -- the performance potential is being choked by the chipsets, motherboard, and memory (which has NOT kept up with CPU progress).
September 23, 2005 2:49:20 PM

I'm British -- boarding school - Rosall (near Blackpool). Racial comments -- another PC monitor in da house with little or nothing to say.
September 23, 2005 4:24:31 PM

Oh please, show some maturity if you want people to take you seriously.

(\__/)
(='.'=) <A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
(")_(")
September 23, 2005 4:35:57 PM

Ok whatever you say Ned, I've been around this place a hell of a lot longer than you have Ned so dial back your "Father" figure please.

And please stop the crying "Racist" BS -- it serves no purpose and is just spew to try to divert the content.
September 23, 2005 4:56:34 PM

All right... let's cut to the chase... since you like beating around the bush so much.

Who today, right now, would buy an "8 GHz" CPU? Answer the question honestly... I mean I know you would, but who else?

How much would this CPU cost? I'm guessing at least $1200 in today's market. How many of these CPUs do you think are going to sell at that price? Again, be honest.

If you think for a minute that the cost to research and develop an "8 GHz" CPU is going to be offset by the huge number of people wanting one... you're sadly mistaken. The demand isn't there. You don't waste resources in R & D developing a product no one is going to buy... yet somehow it still isn't sinking in.

Just because you want an "8 GHz" CPU, you assume the vast majority of us want it as well. (Well, I'm sure some of us wouldn't mind... but I digress). Yes, I've heard the wild claims that Intel said "this architecture will take us to 10 GHz... blah blah blah"... but I wasn't stupid enough to assume we'd all have 10 GHz processors within a year. With heat and other issues... it was pretty damn clear that Intel or AMD would have trouble hitting 5 GHz... let alone 8 or 10. Hell, Intel won't even get to 4 GHz the way things are now.

Get the damn clock speed mentality out of your head. Clock speed isn't the only way to improve performance. I have no doubt that both AMD and Intel are going to develop something big within the next couple of years. This doesn't mean "8 GHz" CPUs... but it will mean better-performing CPUs.



<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
September 23, 2005 7:19:55 PM

V8VENOM: Did you ever think that people (like me) would buy a dualcore CPU to run more than one application without the limitation of a singlecore, the price of a dual-cpu setup, or having multiple computer systems?! WOW! Thats more Logic! Hopefully that can enter your mind and take effect. It seems as if the logic and very valid reasoning of the others here is above your own, that you can not bear the taste of defeat, or spare your ego long enough to learn somthing and admit that you are wrong. This constant arguing over somthing very trivial and out of our controll is in fact pointless! Why must you continue Venom?

<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"
September 23, 2005 10:34:32 PM

To be honest, I barely notice the difference between my XP 2400+ and my A64 3200+ Winchester at 2.4Ghz. I simply don't use much that really requires the horsepower so the times I notice the difference are few and far between.

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!
September 23, 2005 10:53:30 PM

I have an xp2000 sitting next to my a64 3200+ @ 2.45 Boy can I notice a difference. Then again, the primary use for the xp is folding, so it's kind of like continually benchmarking.
If you guessed that I use the A64 for my gaming, because it is that much better , you would be really right.
September 23, 2005 11:19:17 PM

Quote:
Dual core compliant?? That has no meaning in the context presented -- one codes software to make use of multiple CPU, there is no "compliance". Any software is "compliant" with dual core CPUs (old or new).

Grasping at straws are we? If you didn't understand that to mean capable of using bothe cores...
Quote:
One: The example you presented are several applications not ONE application -- in YOUR example you are hoping the OS will managed each applications thread (or threads). WinXP is notorious stupid and is a VERY poor manager of application threads. WinXP may or may not apply those application threads to the appropriate CPU.

Two different points. 1, nobody runs only 1 application at a time any more. That's the main point behind dual cores.
2 xp doesn't do thread assignment weel Sounds like software is holding up the hardware revolution once again. Fortunately Vista is just around the corner.
Quote:
The bottom line is that those apps are gonna take longer to produce and cost more

And your point is? If it gets the job done faster, there's profit to be made for everyone.
Quote:
AMD/Intel think they can go into cruise mode for the next 2-5 years

That is a joke. Intel has just been working through a major change in thier roadmap. They are killing themselves trying to catch up to Amd, and all you can do is say they are in cruise mode? Do you have any idea of the work required to get a new chip out the door?
Ever heard the expression "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Chip makers could use all they can get, since even for thoses angels, today's transistors are very small.
Here's a thought for you. The number of engineers who are capable of being involved in devoloping a new stepping, are very limited. Each new change, sends a few of them over the edge. They are a limited resource, that you want to push beyond reasonable limits to sate some unimportant person whim.
Too late. You just aren't worth it any more.
September 23, 2005 11:21:59 PM

Quote:
Dual core compliant?? That has no meaning in the context presented -- one codes software to make use of multiple CPU, there is no "compliance". Any software is "compliant" with dual core CPUs (old or new).

Grasping at straws are we? If you didn't understand that to mean capable of using bothe cores...
Quote:
One: The example you presented are several applications not ONE application -- in YOUR example you are hoping the OS will managed each applications thread (or threads). WinXP is notorious stupid and is a VERY poor manager of application threads. WinXP may or may not apply those application threads to the appropriate CPU.

Two different points. 1, nobody runs only 1 application at a time any more. That's the main point behind dual cores.
2 xp doesn't do thread assignment well. Sounds like software is holding up the hardware revolution once again. Fortunately Vista is just around the corner.
Quote:
The bottom line is that those apps are gonna take longer to produce and cost more

And your point is? If it gets the job done faster, there's profit to be made for everyone.
Quote:
AMD/Intel think they can go into cruise mode for the next 2-5 years

That is a joke. Intel has just been working through a major change in thier roadmap. They are killing themselves trying to catch up to Amd, and all you can do is say they are in cruise mode? Do you have any idea of the work required to get a new chip out the door?
Ever heard the expression "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Chip makers could use all they can get, since even for thoses angels, today's transistors are very small.
Here's a thought for you. The number of engineers who are capable of being involved in devoloping a new stepping, are very limited. Each new change, sends a few of them over the edge. They are a limited resource, that you want to push beyond reasonable limits to sate some unimportant personal whim.
Too late. You just aren't worth it any more.
September 23, 2005 11:37:48 PM

Again you don't have enough knowledge to understand -- but you are correct I should not waste time helping you understand the concepts of threaded applications and multiple CPUs. Because you run several applications, that does NOT mean the OS will parse out those applications efficiently to each CPU. So are you saying if you want to run 4 applications at the same time you need 4 CPUs?? Give me a break please. If you want a clue on just how many threads are using up you CPU cycles go into control panel, administrative tools, Services -- you see that long list -- all those services are applications running in the background with timed threads consuming your processing power -- on my system I have about 50 of these activitely running, so you got 50 CPUs??

Ask yourself these questions and maybe you'll start to see the big picture:

1. How long have multipe CPU systems (dual core or 2 single cores) been available to the mass market at affordable prices?

2. How many CPU specific threaded applications exist since multiple CPU systems have existed (your answer to 1)?

Now think hard and then you might just start to understand. Dual core is NOTHING NEW to software developers cause it is the same as two CPU's in fact Hyperthreading is the same "virtual" concept.
September 24, 2005 12:06:48 AM

Once agian your logic is flawed. Just because there are 50 applications running, doesn't mean that they are all using up the CPU!

Edit: You need to account into the fact that dualcore is much easyer to install and configure than a dual cpu system. Making somthing easy and effective can have positive influence on customers and boost popularity and possibly make it mainstream. Now that having more than one CPU is becoming more and more popular, It is logical to expect multi threaded application to become more practical to use!

<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Clob on 09/23/05 07:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 24, 2005 1:59:13 AM

Quote:
on my system I have about 50 of these activitely running,

Actively? I think not. BTW, what kind of moron would leave that many apps eating memory resources.
If you really dont understand what I am saying, you have my pity.
For my part, I know how to manage resources so that dual core will do little for me. For people who dont know how to control background apps, and want to "multi-task", dual core is a real benefit.
You should really give dual core a try, you seem like a perfect candidate.
September 24, 2005 2:37:47 AM

LOL i wish i could have gotten in on this discussion because this guy is obviously an idiot and will not give up a losing fight.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
September 24, 2005 2:40:20 AM

Ok, but do you have the same videocard in both rigs?

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!
September 24, 2005 2:57:42 AM

Wrong question. I'm embarassed to admit that I have my 9600p in my gaming rig and haven't swapped it for the 9800pro in the folding rig. I will get around to it. I was just testing things out, and haven't switched back, because I really want an x800xl.
September 24, 2005 4:23:24 AM

I have a x800xl.

A couple things. First of all if you run at really high resolutions (I run at 1920x1200) and play games like BF2, it's good, but I'd seriously fork out more money if I was to do it again.

Second, if you're not running at those really high resolutions, the card is wicked.

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!
September 24, 2005 5:39:45 AM

Yes... That question also interests me!

<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"
September 24, 2005 6:10:29 AM

Too [-peep-]' old -- you folks are beyond ignorant. None of you understand the OS and the how to code thread apps for multiple CPUs.

What a bunch of tools.
September 24, 2005 6:33:53 AM

Leave then, before we ban you.

(\__/)
(='.'=) <A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
(")_(")
September 24, 2005 6:38:20 AM

Instead of threatening him, why don't you just argue your points?

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!
September 24, 2005 9:00:04 AM

Not worth my time.

(\__/)
(='.'=) <A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
(")_(")
September 24, 2005 10:37:42 AM

He doesnt understand that the cpu industry can only advance so fast and also has no concept of the law of greater diminishing returns.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
September 24, 2005 7:12:31 PM

I still dont understand where the OS comes into play with the advancement of CPU performance!

You just got PWNED by everyone in here. So pelase, do your self a a favor and take your flawed logic, ignorant reasoning, and inability to learn far way from here!

I honestly loved reading your bull [-peep-] and laughing at your limited mind and understanding. If you where not so closed-minded, you may understand a lot more!

Now since we all know that your going to reply, Please grace us with more of your ignorance! The only thing that you can say here without makeing yourself look even more stupid is somthing along the lines of an apology and full admittance of you being wrong!



<font color=red>"Battling Gimps and Dimbulbs HERE at THGC"</font color=red>

"<font color=blue> Wusy</font color=blue> <-Professional sheep banger"
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Clob on 09/24/05 02:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!