How long will Dual-Cores last ? And Quad-Cores, what gives ?

[Zenoth]

Am I seeing the beginning of the end of the Dual-Cores era ... already ?

We've been using Single-Core CPUs since ... well, since they exist, which means many, many years, if not literally decades. Since when are we (by "we" I mean a general term for humans) using Dual-Cores (let's pretend from the moment it started out of the labs, non-public release, and perhaps used in specialized companies first) ? And how long will that last ? Already we can buy a Quad-Core CPU from Intel, and, personally, I would have never imagined such a thing being possible back then when I bought my X2 4400+, which was only last year. What I am trying to say is that perhaps the Dual-Core "era" could well turn out to be a very short "transition" period.

I can already imagine most PC gamers buying affordable Quad-Cores by mid/late 2008. Or else, I can foresee (just a guess of course) AMD and Intel stopping production of their Dual-Core products by 2009 or earlier (AMD already did it to a small extent). And games already using, potentially, more than two Cores (namely Alan Wake and if I am not mistaken, UT 2007, which will sell like hotcakes).

All that for the new era of Quad-Cores, which will eventually end up in non-enthusiasts systems perhaps faster than Dual-Core. Was Dual-Core even well received by the public at first glance ? Perhaps it was the hype. Only to realize by now that, at least as far as gaming goes, in most cases, it was all false expectations, and Intel/AMD never said games would automatically benefit from them either, we kind of made that up in our mind, thinking "hey, we never know, let's give it a shot".

When Valve Software did their survey on-line, and hundreds of thousands of gamers gave their system specifications, I was literally shocked that around 95% of all CPUs used were Single-Cores (that was during summer of last year I believe, I might be wrong, but those stats can be viewed any day I think on their web-site). I'm questioning our "hopes" and expectations for Quad-Cores. Is it useful ? Will Software developers really work their arses day and nights for us so that at least that little minority of enthusiasts will even notice the benefits because they got the money (or the luck, thanks to their relatives or parents) ?

And that experimental Intel one, 80-Cores was it ? Expected to give results in a system working using it by 2010 or so ? Between now and 2010, how many eras of technologies are we going to experience ?

Single-Cores lasted perhaps decades and are still used today, maybe less by gamers, but gamers still aren't even composing half of the world-wide PC users. There is a lot of companies still running old Pentiums on Windows ME ...

However, technologies move, and so most of us, at least gamers, eventually are kinda of forced, in a subtle way, to move on as well, with all the beautiful fancy words in new techs from DX10 and Vista, all the gimmick that might turn out to be true but still a rare sight. I wonder why ... because we can ? Looking at the prices for those new techs, is the market ready for that ?

How much companies invest on creating Dual-Cores, only to see that about 4 or 5 years later they have to spend what , hundred of millions on creating another technology that isn't assured to last half the time of the previous one, but did cost as much to produce if not much more.

Well ...

All that is ... it's just my thoughts on the coming of Quad-Cores, and seeing our beloved Dual-Cores already dying out on the horizon.

What is your take, your opinions and thoughts about all this, how technologies move, why is it so fast, are we gamers and others that play the pressure role on the software developers that bent on seeking for evolution without content in the end in most cases ? Do we really like those technology demos with a sub-par storyline behind it which ends up labeled a "game" in the end ? The few exceptions that do make it through our eyes from their visual splendor to our heart for years are enough ?

 

[Conky]

They will last until something better comes along. That is how it's always been with computer gear.

 

[Zenoth]

I'm not questioning why we move to that technology because it's "better", I'm questioning why it happens so fast, when, before, we were all happy with Mario Brothers. Do we HAVE to move on, and if so, that fast ?

 

[Nocturnal]

It happens so fast probably because the speed war is over. It's evolution of the microprocessor basically. Instead of ramping up speed, it's ramping up x amount of cores. So even though we've had only single cores for so long, it's now a # of cores war instead of a speed war.

 

[Zenoth]

So the engineers see new opportunities, new ways to accomplish something, theorize, test and develop new technologies, rather than doing it because the consumers want it. However once it is developed, it is presented as a new top-gun for specific consumers, i.e gamers, enthusiasts and such. I see clearly. But where are we going.

Even excluding gaming, does the public "need" such powerful CPUs ? Will Mr.Joe regularly use 4, 8 or 32 Cores with his Winamp, Browser x y and z, and CD-Burning ? I can do all that on a Single-Core. What does the public ask for ? Why are engineers offering us that technology ? You know they could still develop it, but why do they offer us all the new processing power houses. Because it's "cool" I assume.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
So the engineers see new opportunities, new ways to accomplish something, theorize, test and develop new technologies, rather than doing it because the consumers want it. However once it is developed, it is presented as a new top-gun for specific consumers, i.e gamers, enthusiasts and such. I see clearly. But where are we going.

Even excluding gaming, does the public "need" such powerful CPUs ? Will Mr.Joe regularly use 4, 8 or 32 Cores with his Winamp, Browser x y and z, and CD-Burning ? I can do all that on a Single-Core. What does the public ask for ? Why are engineers offering us that technology ? You know they could still develop it, but why do they offer us all the new processing power houses. Because it's "cool" I assume.

Because they can ram it down people's throats and make them think they need it. Look at the people who were so wowed by Alan Wake... *snore*

 

[asuka10456]

To be honest i didn't care much dual cores came out cause they didn't do anything in gaming, the only reason i have a core 2 duo now is cause it is way faster than any single core. When i heard intel released there quad core i didn't even look for it anywhere since i kno i wouldnt buy it and it won't benefit me at all.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
Even excluding gaming, does the public "need" such powerful CPUs ? Will Mr.Joe regularly use 4, 8 or 32 Cores with his Winamp, Browser x y and z, and CD-Burning ? I can do all that on a Single-Core. What does the public ask for ? Why are engineers offering us that technology ? You know they could still develop it, but why do they offer us all the new processing power houses. Because it's "cool" I assume.

You're right, 640K ought to be enough for anybody

 

[Zenoth]

Is that the famous sentence from Bill Gates ?

He probably couldn't see things moving that fast either back then. It hasn't changed at all when you think about it. We can't imagine what will happen in 5 years, and in five years we'll say that we won't be able to imagine what's going to happen in 5 years again.

 

[lyssword]

one word : distributed computing

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: lyssword
one word : distributed computing

$1k for a CPU to run DC apps?

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: lyssword
one word : distributed computing

$1k for a CPU to run DC apps?

No, I'll wait till they are $200 a pop or less

 

[nyker96]

I'm not surprised that 90+% using single core for games. THis doesn't mean they don't own another dual core box for non-games.

I will venture a quick speculation on your question of why we moved over dual core era so fast. This in my mind is because of Intel. It's pushing to regain market and in this quest Intel rolled out quad as soon as it was able to make it. If you look at roadmap from 2-3 years ago. AMD was expecting to roll out K8L at the beginning of 2008. This is when they thought dual->quad transition should occur. Accordingly, AMD's design team is taking their sweet time with K8L, not suspecting Intel's Kensfield attack would come so soon as end of 2006. This of course forced AMD to roll out quad at second half of 2007 instead of Q1/2008. But rest assured, just because Quad gets introduced doesn't mean we all will no longer use dual core from now on, it just means dual will be more mainstream and if anything, in the next few years due to this main stream status dual will be ever more popular. Dual core era isn't over, it's getting to the point that it begins to really take off in popularity now that quad will hold the top spot and dual will move into hands of average user.

 

[Cheex]

Its more business related than technology related. Intel wants to ship 1 million quad cores before AMD ships their first one.
Core 2 Duo regained Intel the title of processor kingpins and now with Core 2 Quad, they are just kicking AMD while they are down (and while the referee (us, the consumers) isn't looking).

Its all business my friend.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Cheex
Its more business related than technology related. Intel wants to ship 1 million quad cores before AMD ships their first one.
Core 2 Duo regained Intel the title of processor kingpins and now with Core 2 Quad, they are just kicking AMD while they are down (and while the referee (us, the consumers) isn't looking).

Its all business my friend.

Right on. Now when Intel abandons the FSB in favor of Hypertransport, then we will see something.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nyker96
I'm not surprised that 90+% using single core for games. THis doesn't mean they don't own another dual core box for non-games.

I will venture a quick speculation on your question of why we moved over dual core era so fast. This in my mind is because of Intel. It's pushing to regain market and in this quest Intel rolled out quad as soon as it was able to make it. If you look at roadmap from 2-3 years ago. AMD was expecting to roll out K8L at the beginning of 2008. This is when they thought dual->quad transition should occur. Accordingly, AMD's design team is taking their sweet time with K8L, not suspecting Intel's Kensfield attack would come so soon as end of 2006. This of course forced AMD to roll out quad at second half of 2007 instead of Q1/2008. But rest assured, just because Quad gets introduced doesn't mean we all will no longer use dual core from now on, it just means dual will be more mainstream and if anything, in the next few years due to this main stream status dual will be ever more popular. Dual core era isn't over, it's getting to the point that it begins to really take off in popularity now that quad will hold the top spot and dual will move into hands of average user.

The fact remains and will remain for some time. If you're a gamer...you benefit much more from faster clock speeds and better per clock performance on a single core than you do from having 4. So if you got a E6300 and overclocked it to 3Ghz+ it's better than a QX6700(assuming it's not overclocked as far) for gaming. It may swing a little bit in the future, but for the time being and well into next year you will benefit more from a faster dual core (games will be made to use 2 cores maybe not necessarily 4 yet) or a single core. Although every hardcore gamer knows you need to have a powerful video card first.

 

[bjp999]

Originally posted by: asuka10456
To be honest i didn't care much dual cores came out cause they didn't do anything in gaming, the only reason i have a core 2 duo now is cause it is way faster than any single core...

THIS is why Conroe is so huge. Programmers tend to write sequential (single core) programs because that's how the core of their products were designed. Without demand for parallel processing to take advantage of the dual cores, they wouldn't make the switch. Similarly, buyers like us were not going to buy a dual core processor that ran the current generation of software SLOWER than their current single core processor, despite promises of future benefit. Stalemate.

Enter Conroe. With its superior SINGLE core performance and huge enthusiast appeal, its the changing of the guard, and a brilliant move by Intel. Look at how many hard core AMD fans have made the switch to Intel. The fact that these babies will OC like crazy and can be had for well under $200, has made that carrot irresistible to us. Every forum is brimming with people wanting to know how to squeeze the last few percent of performance. They're selling like hotcakes!

The pressure is now on the game manufacturers and other software writers to make their games run faster on multi-cores, since so many of the power users now have them and are calmering for it. By introducing the quad core so quickly, I think Intel is trying to tell the software writers "while you're writing your new engines, don't write them for 2 cores, write them for 'n' cores." Once this switch is complete, and the next generation of games (and benchmarks) will get linearly faster with more cores, Intel and AMD can start ramping up the multi-core wars and people will buy them.

I'll bet that quad will be surpassed by 8, 16, 32 and more. I read that Intel was working an an 8000 core CPU in the lab! Single core speed is a pretty firm barrier that cannot be easily overcome. It takes exotic materials and huge R&D to get even incremental improvement. But multi-core is different, core count can go up and up as you see how quickly they moved from 2 to 4. Hold on to your pocketbooks, because the days of new CPUs coming out every year with double and triple the performance of the one in your box are coming again!

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: nyker96
I'm not surprised that 90+% using single core for games. THis doesn't mean they don't own another dual core box for non-games.

I will venture a quick speculation on your question of why we moved over dual core era so fast. This in my mind is because of Intel. It's pushing to regain market and in this quest Intel rolled out quad as soon as it was able to make it. If you look at roadmap from 2-3 years ago. AMD was expecting to roll out K8L at the beginning of 2008. This is when they thought dual->quad transition should occur. Accordingly, AMD's design team is taking their sweet time with K8L, not suspecting Intel's Kensfield attack would come so soon as end of 2006. This of course forced AMD to roll out quad at second half of 2007 instead of Q1/2008. But rest assured, just because Quad gets introduced doesn't mean we all will no longer use dual core from now on, it just means dual will be more mainstream and if anything, in the next few years due to this main stream status dual will be ever more popular. Dual core era isn't over, it's getting to the point that it begins to really take off in popularity now that quad will hold the top spot and dual will move into hands of average user.

The fact remains and will remain for some time. If you're a gamer...you benefit much more from faster clock speeds and better per clock performance on a single core than you do from having 4. So if you got a E6300 and overclocked it to 3Ghz+ it's better than a QX6700(assuming it's not overclocked as far) for gaming. It may swing a little bit in the future, but for the time being and well into next year you will benefit more from a faster dual core (games will be made to use 2 cores maybe not necessarily 4 yet) or a single core. Although every hardcore gamer knows you need to have a powerful video card first.

I agree, no game house will make games that is for only 1-2% of owners. It will attempt to cover the majority. So I take it games like Alan Wake is on the rare side, if anything Intel probably paid them to specifically put in quad support. Most normal game house will probably go for dual since we can all see that will be popular in the next few years.

 

[bjp999]

Originally posted by: nyker96
I agree, no game house will make games that is for only 1-2% of owners. It will attempt to cover the majority. So I take it games like Alan Wake is on the rare side, if anything Intel probably paid them to specifically put in quad support. Most normal game house will probably go for dual since we can all see that will be popular in the next few years.

Game companies want good reviews and good feedback. If multi-core support will make computer enthusiasts on GameSpot and other places give them high scores and rave about about how great the game is, and if it will score more FPS than competing games on benchmark computers that Anandtech and others use, and if it will get them a special mention on the cover of Computer Gaming magazine, then they will do it.

 

[coldpower27]

Dual Cores started much more mainstream then Quad Core though, with a price of 241USD from Intel, and it didn't take long for them to get down to near el cheapo status with a 93 USD available Pentium D 820 from Intel now.

Quad Cores have a fair amount of time before that happens, and you lose a fair bit of clockspeed going to Quad Core for now, not to mention they cost double or more then double the equivalent Dual Core, so we are not where near the price inflection point of the Dual Core = Quad Core in price, or a relatively close approximation at least.

Look at Intel, Pentium D 820 is now 93 USD, the Pentium 4 531 is now 74 USD, the pricing premium is still there for Quad Core, but it isn't too hard to swallow.

Were still pretty much at 2x the cores 2x or 2x+ the price for Quad. Even when the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is released at 851USD that is well above 2x of the E6600 316USD. At well above the 500USD mark don't expect to see Quad Cores fall into the mainstream so soon. I also doubt the dispperance of Single Core in the future it will just be shifted to bargain basement machines. A cheap Single Core processor from Intel can be had for as low as 34USD. Performance is on par with maybe a Athlon XP 2200+, but hey it's 34 USD. Don't expect the moon here.

I also doubt AMD will price their Quad Cores at low pricing given the near 300mm2 die size, as they are based on a new architecture and AMD needs to position them as their premium line.

Don't worry we will remain in the mainstream Dual Core area for sometime to come. I don't think I will even think about considering Quad Core, until Nehalem arrives.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: lyssword

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: lyssword
one word : distributed computing

$1k for a CPU to run DC apps?

No, I'll wait till they are $200 a pop or less

I would bite at 350-400 or so, just like 2 6300's, but only one motherboard, case psu, hd, tc...

And I use ALL the cores ALL the time (F@H)

 

[zephyrprime]

It's just Moore's law coupled with the scaling wall of superscalar processors. Engineers have really hit a wall with the design of the superscalar processor. Putting more features into it has become prohibitively expensive with too much lead time. So we have switched to the multicore approach. Why? Because it's so easy. I'm serious. It requires very little design effort to turn a traditional processor into a multicore design. The primary difficulty is being able to fabricate enough transistors.

What's worse, at the same time the darn laws of physics is seriously slowed down increases in clock speed. Remember, a die shrink used to be good for a 100% clockspeed increase!

Computer engineers saw this problem coming some years back and they debated the direction the industry would go. The proponents of multicore designs have been proven correct because AMD, Intel, and IBM are really conservative and lack expertise with the exotic processor designs that other factions proposed.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: bjp999

Originally posted by: nyker96
I agree, no game house will make games that is for only 1-2% of owners. It will attempt to cover the majority. So I take it games like Alan Wake is on the rare side, if anything Intel probably paid them to specifically put in quad support. Most normal game house will probably go for dual since we can all see that will be popular in the next few years.

Game companies want good reviews and good feedback. If multi-core support will make computer enthusiasts on GameSpot and other places give them high scores and rave about about how great the game is, and if it will score more FPS than competing games on benchmark computers that Anandtech and others use, and if it will get them a special mention on the cover of Computer Gaming magazine, then they will do it.

Most game reviewers actually play the game and take into account more than just graphics. That's why games that look stunning don't get 10s

 

[bjp999]

cmdrdredd -

I agree. But I still think new games that come out and support dual and even quad cores will get some positive press for their troubles, which is a desirable thing for them even if (initially) not a lot of users will be able to take advantage.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: bjp999
cmdrdredd -

I agree. But I still think new games that come out and support dual and even quad cores will get some positive press for their troubles, which is a desirable thing for them even if (initially) not a lot of users will be able to take advantage.

If people don't buy it cause the game is garbage...the devs won't build games using this tech.