- Jan 29, 2005
- 5,196
- 197
- 106
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 ?
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 ?