Originally posted by: 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
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.
Originally posted by: cmv
I only got my Dual Core laptop for the power savings over a Celeron model but now that I have it I love it. One crappy application can't hog the whole system. Now of course the issue of slow hard drives is going to become more and more important so the next cool things (besides n-cores of course) will be faster storage. I hope at least -- HDs are a real bottle neck.
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
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.
Originally posted by: LouHead
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.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount the planning of game developers, WRT the economics of gaming with mutiple cores.
Valve Goes Multicore
It appear Half-life 3 and possibly the next 'Mini-Episode' will both take FULL advantage of a Multi-Core (not just dual core), PC. This will happen, and set the bar for serious game developers.
With delivery and update systems like Steam, Valve is already planning on making games, and backwards compatable updates, for the 1-2% you speak of.
Very Sweet.
-LA
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Only if the game is good.
Originally posted by: harpoon84
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Only if the game is good.
I have faith in Valve - they make kickass games.
Originally posted by: piddlefoot
tried n tested on so many games, lm sick of arguing this topic, dual core systems , OWN, single core systems for ANY online gaming, you have so many backround tasks, cpu overhead, and a few other things, the second core lets it all run smoother, all you single core'ers that have never owned one are in my opinion flat wrong, l hear some who own them say there single is better and in offline games like HL2 there right, for now, but online, or lanned, even most single player games are faster on a dual core, well not faster, SMOOTHER, smoother is better, clock speed has been a thing of the past for 2 years now, its all about throughput, how much info can be moved at once, not how fast it can be done, dual core utterly own single core, as far as lm concerned, in everything, a dual core 3 gig cpu is ALWAYS going to be better than a 3 gig single core cpu, no matter what your doing, its insane to still be paying lots of cash for single core rubbish.
And its BULLSHIT to ramble on about how friggin good single core cpu's are, because there JUNK and history.
Agree totally. The difference is, though, that servers are doing lots of things at the same time, so the OS can handle divying out the CPUs/cores. The harder part is designing single task software that takes advantage of the parallel opportunities. The OS can't do this. Although there are some apps in video and image processing that can and do take advantage, they are by far the minority.Originally posted by: dev0lution
Hate to rain on your parade, but servers have been seeing the benefit of 2-way and 4-way+ architectures for years. So now that you have the same effect, albeit on a single die, moving downwards into the desktop/notebook space, how's that a bad thing? ...
Originally posted by: 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 ?
Originally posted by: ariafrost
Originally posted by: 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 ?
It's because the Singularity is approaching.
Originally posted by: MBrown
I am pissed right now. I JUST bought my 4400X2 and now in about 2 or three months its going to choke and die with every game I throw at it because they are going to be aimed at quad core instead of dual core. Makes me want to drop out of the PC scene and go console. :|
Originally posted by: hans007
well , we used to count with Ghz or Mhz, now we count with cores, since clock speed isnt rising much.
no big deal, same as always.
i figure CPUs will be "useable" for 3 years or so. though they will not be super fast in the last year of that anymore. but yeah... they last as long as they arent slow. some satelites still use 486s and such.