Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:28:31 05/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2000 at 19:37:58, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On May 21, 2000 at 19:05:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>You are missing my point. Within 5 years, a single microprocessor chip is going >>to have more than one cpu. There are already prototypes. Several vendors have >>done this already, although none that are "PC" aware... >> >>But a dual or quad cpu chip is coming. Quicker than you might think. And it >>will still be able to run in a palm or whatever, if the computational demands >>continue to increase.. > >I think multiprocessor machines are great, but my question is why are they >useful for the average person, given current software? The average person isn't >doing more than one CPU intensive thing at once, if they are doing any CPU >intensive things, ever. My wife is an example. She uses a big database program at home to prepare queries for things she is doing at the office. Some of these queries run for 15 minutes. While she is doing that, she watches video clips or listens to sound clips. If listening to sound clips, she might be running Netscape to fiddle around on the net. So running two cpu-bound things at once is quite normal for her. And on occasion she exceeds that (ie browsers can fire up Java applets that also need cpu resources... and web sites are getting more and more sophisticated as available cpu power continues to climb.) I could _easily_ see someone running a dual. If you are talking about a home machine, running a web server for a personal web site, that is another case... Or an anonymous ftp server. I have always found that computing power requirements always rise to consume all available computing power available. And then some... > >The software has to take advantage of multiple processors so that it can speed >up tasks for single-processor humans, and that is a bitch. Not really... IE NT does this just fine right now. Yes, a single application is a problem... But it is much more common to run two apps at the same time, and this will use both cpus invisibly... > >Aside from chess programs, I don't do anything that is CPU-intensive, except >maybe some games, which seem to run fine now on my 550 mhz Intel machine. In >fact, everything seems to run fine now. If I have to sit and wait for something >it is typically modem bandwidth (56K modem here) or internet lag. > >So if they are going to be common, why? What is the upside for the typical home >user or semi-casual business user? computing cycles to keep up with the ever-growing demand. 5 years ago people thought a new 486/66 was too fast for the typical user. Today most would throw the bum out after browsing for 10 minutes. Today a PIII/600 is considered fast enough. Care to bet what is "fast enough" in 3 years? In 5 years? One way to go faster cheaply is a dual cpu machine. Much cheaper to build 2x800 than it is to build 1x1600. Super-scalar was the "first edition" of this. Everyone said "not needed". Now it has become essential fare for cpu designers. Dual cpus on a single chip are already being done. Just not from intel (yet). But soon I think... > >bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.