Ok, so we've been in the same speed bracket (1.8-3.2Ghz roughly) for a few years now. All of the performance increases since then have come about with added cores, more cache, die shrinks and some optimizations. So when do we reach the delta for those things and what happens then? Also, added cores are certainly nice but you can hardly count them much as there is little software that can use 2 cores let alone 4. They certaily help with multitasking, but once we get to 8, 16 or more cores, what then? You can only multitask so much.At least guys like us get some kind of return on our investment, but what about Joe Sixpack and Jill Shoppingcart? What exactly are they getting from multiple cores? I was at Best Buy recently and overheard the sales guy in the computer department extolling the virtues of the dual core CPU in the machine he was pitching, but will the average home user see any of the benefit?

Better software will help with this but software has lagged behind hardware for a long time now. When are the software makers going to get on the stick? Or can they? I don't know, I'm just a hardware junkie, but I wonder about it.

Well thats enough rant for now. Thanks for reading. These are the things that keep me awake at night. :)

I remember years ago when I worked computer retail I just could'nt do that crap. Much less sell those stupid and useless extended warranties which is the only way we made anything over hourly. Hopefully the multicore management will continue it's slow creep to the higher efficiency on home machines. But to some degree it does help performance wise on my computer. Ya know the thing that always gets me is the crossfire/SLI thing it is a hardware implementation. Your computer has one graphics core to display the cards split it and run it as one visual out with basically twice the performance. Why does a game need to support it? The cards are taking the one visual splitting and recombining the visual would seem to need nothing else. I could see some type of graphical inefficiency but even with a 60% drop you have 200% output. so your running at 140% and I know the penalty would be nowhere near that huge. I could see 40% at the most but it's probably like 20-30% so your running at 180%-170% performance which still would be great. But why does a game or graphical program need to support it at all????

The main benefit of multiple cores is as you have mentioned multitasking as well as rendering and editing...

That is to say, if you tend to encode/decode or render a LOT of video projects the more cores the better basically as its EXTREMELY CPU intensive. This also includes photo editing and to a lesser extent: 3d design -- With the exception of 3D design, all of what I mentioned pretty much use 99% CPU to accomplish the end project.

Benifits of a quad core for me? I use my computer (or used I should say since my PC is down) for a lot of video editing. Difference between a E6420 @ 3.4Ghz and Q6600 @ 2.8Ghz? A full length video encode probably took on average 15 minutes less with my quad core (on a ~2 hr movie)

 I think you're looking at it in the wrong light.  While the end-user may not realize they are getting the benefits of the multi-core world, their streaming of Youtube videos while downloading from Itunes, and at the same time their daughter writing her homework report on a dual or quad core makes for a better overall computing experience.

It does seem far-fetched to see mutch benefit from the multi-core generations of the future of 8, 16, and 32 cores, but I see a much broader aspect taking shape.  Centralized home computers capable of just placing a touch screen where you would like a workstation, and a secondary input device such as a mouse to make navigation a little easier.  How nice would it be to have a couple work areas in the home with minimal clutter but all the horsepower and none of the noise?  It's a ways off, but that's the general idea I get when thinking of moving forward with multi-core and multi-threading.

1nteljunki3:

Centralized home computers capable of just placing a touch screen where you would like a workstation, and a secondary input device such as a mouse to make navigation a little easier.  How nice would it be to have a couple work areas in the home with minimal clutter but all the horsepower and none of the noise?  It's a ways off, but that's the general idea I get when thinking of moving forward with multi-core and multi-threading.

Deffinately feasable and also likely IMHO.

nECrO1967:

 

Better software will help with this but software has lagged behind hardware for a long time now. When are the software makers going to get on the stick? Or can they? I don't know, I'm just a hardware junkie, but I wonder about it.

 

Old article with Valve, but it is very insightful and might answer the questions you asked.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2868

Thanks for all of your input folks. As always it is much appreciated.

Rapid

I'm not sure I understand your post. It seems you are implying that SLI = 2x the performance. It is anything but. The last I looked, and it's been awhile, the nubers were between 10-20%. Hardly worth 2x the cost. For me anyway. I know there are people who find value in that. I just don't see it for me. As for why the games have to support it, I honestlty don't know. Programming isn't my forte.

Ice and 1nteljunki3

I know what Multi-cores do for ppl like us and power users. The point about the home users doing all the things 1nteljunki3 mentioned is a good one (Not to mention helping with all the added spyware running in the background). The one point I want to make is that a great deal of home users aren't doing all that at the same time. Not everyone has kids. A good percentage of home users probably average 2 tasks at a time. I think there is a large portion of the buying public who see very little if any benefit of multi-cores. And thats fine as there are still sigle core and lower end/cheaper CPU's like Celeron and Sempron out there to service that customer base. Only problem with that is when they go to a retail store for a computer, they usually get offered faqr more than they need. (Including the crappy extended warranty).

The idea of a central computer with satalite workstations is a great one. Especially with touchscreens. Almost like a home data center. :) (Now if only Cisco would come down on the price of those 256 port 10gigabit switches, I ould have the perfect home network!)

Thansk again for your replies. Recovering, Ice, 1nteljunki3, you replies also give me food for thought as well as answers to my silly questions.