What is Digg?163 Comments
- Valermos, on 10/10/2007, -9/+93Your computer doesn't need to obey a speed limit like your car does. There's no reason for users not to want their computers running as fast as possible.
- geoken, on 10/10/2007, -3/+69My OS can make use of all my cores and distribute their proccessing power among my concurently running apps. What does it matter if individual apps can't?
That would be like saying I'm not getting my money's worth out of my ram because the majority of my apps only use a fraction of it. - Sarki, on 10/10/2007, -51/+82I don't drive my car with the gas pedal to the floor, so I guess that's a big waste too, right?
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26lets trash the ***** out of a quad-core CPU so we can check our email. Great idea!
- arbiterxero, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24CPU's don't use much more power between half-used and maxed-out.
Not to mention, why would I want to wait for my App. to load, like I wait in traffic? - archlich, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19If you have a production server running at 100% cpu, then your server is underpowered.
- bitterg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21This is a very flawed article. It assumes that there is only proper financial value in the CPU being used 100%, but most technologies we buy aren't meant to be run at full throttle.
Not all apps are multithreaded, but more and more are. You don't need to have 100% multithreaded apps to benefit from a multithreaded CPU. - SiliconRain, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21That's easily the worst analogy I've heard all day.
- aldenhg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Or you could just run multithreaded applications when they come out. Newer games are mostly multithreaded, as is Adobe CS3. Also, the wonder of multiple cores isn't just that you can have multiple brains on one task, it's that you can run multiple tasks without any slowdown.
- drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11They seriously don't understand why more programs aren't multi-threaded. It's not that programmers don't understand HOW to do it, it's that most programs don't NEED it. Unless your running a program that has a lot going on in the background, there isn't a need. Consumers aren't going to pay an extra $100 for a program that runs 10% fasters than the single threaded version. The large bulk of a programs time is spent idle anyway.
The programs that would even remotely consider multi-threaded architecture already use it. - manitoba98xp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I run Folding at Home....that'll use my spare CPU cycles, and for a good cause! http://folding.stanford.edu
(There are other similar projects, like SETI@HOME, but FAH is my favourite.) - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Most people don't want the power for top speed. They want that headroom so they can quickly pass your slow moped.
- cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13My desktop overheating on a hot summer day from being in a room with less than stellar ventilation is a reason for me not running the computer as fast as possible all the time.
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12What a crappy article. it assumes a number of things, firstly, that the bottleneck is indeed the CPU. Most apps when loading or otherwise are waiting for the RAM or hard disk. Secondly, it assuems that all apps benefit from using 100% CPU, they don't. My Im probgram shouldn't be using that much (on two cores).
Thirdly, it assumes you only run one program at a time. I don't know about you but I've got about 50 processes running and a couple of hundred threads. I brought one of the very first multicore CPUs to do lots of things at once as well as one thing fast. - Genma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9more ***** analogy from more people that don't understand engines or cpus!
- DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I bet you do when you're driving a rental. ;P
- tartle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Does a quad core wait 4 times as fast for the hard drive?
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10As someone who just bought a core 2 quad, I want everything I do to trash the ***** out of my cpu. Especially checking email.
- flickmaster, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Says you.
- BinaryJay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7As a developer, I can say with some certainty that you must clean toilets for a living.
- jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8a dual core processor definitely has benefits even for single threaded programs, if only because you can get some control when that rogue process starts peggin' the CPU. quad cores are really only worth it with programs that utilize multithreading though.
- cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Burn rubber in the parking lot, we gotta get to the grocery store!
- jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11If you drive a ferarri then yes, it is a huge waste.
- slave25637, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7because a cpu is a terrible thing to waste....
- rootstyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Totally inaccurate, even if you only run single threaded applications in a multi-core/multi-chip environment you still see a benefit. XP, Linux, MacOSX, etc will all balance the single threaded applications across the multiple cores. Multi-core systems make desktop usage much more enjoyable as that pesky run-away-program isn't going to totally crawl your system, and of course it has been the norm in servers for 20 years.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Seriously, programming is a constant learning process. And a lot of software companies will only train their programmers on technology only if they think it's profitable. It was only very recently that software companies decided multi-core is the way of the future. Some haven't even gotten that far yet. And chances are if you are a 9-5 programmer you aren't going to learn how to thread for multi core processors until either your company trains you or you fork over the dough for classes on your own. And I'm willing to bet most people don't fork over the money to learn on their own when their company isn't going to offer them ***** for their new education.
- bigtomrodney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5@geoken
I am so glad someone else gets this. I have this conversation twice a day. I for one am glad that not every application is multithreaded. When we get to that stage we might as well be back to one single CPU. I'm glad my OS does most of the work on one CPU, Encoding is set to run on two and the older game I'm running runs on another. Everything gets it's time. It's not like your system is just one process to begin with so why try to get the hundreds of processes you have to spread themselves overall all cores. - mjg59, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6CPUs use a *lot* more power when active compared to when idle. Modern processors support disconnecting themselves from the memory bus and powering down sections of cache while they're waiting for something to do. If you look at a mobile CPU, it'll idle at about 1W and then ramp up to 20W or so when running both cores flat out. Intel's multicore chips support these runtime power saving states (called C states) on a per-core basis, so running one core flat out and leaving one core idle will take less power than running both of them. I've no idea if AMD has the same level of granularity.
- Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sarki, your comparison has no relevance whatsoever. This is about programs no longer able to benefit from faster single core cpus, because as more cores open up, they will still be stuck on that single core due to bad programming.
- berfmurret, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4agreed. generally, as long as the OS can handle the distribution i don't see a problem really.. well, except for in the cases of encoding, compiling, or rendering.. most of the major players already have threaded apps.(except for games, i guess) it is something people should be aware of, certianly.. but it seems like kind of a non-issue for most developers. 1 cpu is enough for most apps, for the time being..
- cooppw02, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I may not be getting my money's worth of my CPU, but Vista is getting its money's worth out of my RAM.
- drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Any moron can create a thread. The trick is learning which tasks to multi-thread and how to track and avoid deadlocks.
Anyone can shoot a bow and arrow, it takes a professional to break a lifesaver at 100 yds. - renatoc8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If you run Vista with 1GB of ram and look at the RAM usage, it can reach 65-80% Idle. Vista keeps allot of data in the page file in order to not fill up the 1GB of quick ram you have, the only problem with this is that the page file is VERY slow, therefore slowing down your performance whenever it needs to be accessed. When you use 2GB for instance, Vista can load more into RAM without being worried that you will run out of space, therefore using less of the paging file, and speeding up your computer.
The reason 2GB is the "minimum" is because only with 2GB can Vista load all of its essential data into RAM without using the page file due to low available RAM.
-Renato - dysonlu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Not sure why you're been dugg down and his analogy dugg up. His analogy just doesn't make sense. Digg is being overrun by juvenile -- it's more and more obvious as each day passes.
- sonofagunn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As I'm typeing this my computer is freezing every few seconds from my company's mandatory 3:30 PM virus scan. I sure wish I had multiple cores and all I'm doing is reading digg.
- rockchops, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why You're Not Getting Your Money's Worth Out of That New CPU ****YET*****
Fixed the submission title for ya bud. Hardware always hits the market before the software for it does. - barius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well, to be fair, Microsoft has done their best to bloat Windows just enough to require an upgrade. Afterall, they have to scratch the OEM backs somehow...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5This is another scam that is perpetuated by the memory companies. If you are running vista and web browsing you will be using less than a gig of memory. If you have only 1 gig of memory, then you will a get a 0% performance increase by adding more memory in that situation. I always laugh when I read articles that say "4 gigs of memory is the sweet spot for windows vista, 2 gigs is the minimum to run it at optimal performance". *****. Even if you run a game like F.E.A.R. that game only uses about 400MB of memory with all the settings set to max.
- boredsam, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8douche-says-what?
- bigtomrodney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ah yes but most large engined cars - and I'm particularly looking at American built/designed cars - are undertuned and very inefficient. There are 4 and 5 litre cars in America that put out as much power as a 1.6 litre Japanese or European car. A 1.8 Jetta puts out more power and *more* torque than a 4.9litre Ford Econoline.
- belthesar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The fact that, with my Raptor array and Dual Core AMD setup, as far as the boon is concerned, that I can run a game with zero slow down and burn a CD with zero errors. That's worth me having a multi-core setup in my book.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"CPU's don't use much more power between half-used and maxed-out."
Well, power usage actually goes up exponentially as you raise the clock, and most CPUs can turn down (or even off for some asynchronous models) their clock when they're not running. So running at the lowest possible clock rate and pegging the CPU 100% makes the most sense economically. - Andir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Um... Those are the people who are in the job for the wrong reasons. I program in threads because I enjoy the learning experience. Not because I get paid more.
- da5id, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Can you post the worse one that you heard yesterday?
- geoken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They say "x amount is the sweetspot" because that's the point were the OS has enough ram to make use of all it's features, while also having enough ram for your apps. Vista's superfetch is a great example of this. It will consume a certain percentage of your ram to pre-load commonly used apps. Then when you launch these apps there is almost no delay. From a cold boot, Firefefox launches almost as fast as it un-minimizes.
Basically my point is just because your - subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Keep in mind that when towing a heavy load, you will actually get worse gas mileage with an underpowered vehicle. You're much better off with a big engine that doesn't have to strain to get the job done.
- fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Quite a lot of RAM is used for cache that can be reallocated as needed. Linux has done this for quite some time and Windows Vista also does it more aggressively than XP. I suspect that OS X does as well.
- citrusfizz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i liked the idea of reverse hyperthreading making multiple cores look like one to programs.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Someone doesn't know what paging is. Paging is never used unless you computer needs to use more physical memory than it has. If your computer needs 1GB of memory and it only has 512MB it uses 512MB of your hard drive as virtual memory which is a lot slower.
- rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yea.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is