1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

A Good, Inexpensive Single-Core cpu

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Puddin' Man, Jul 28, 2008.

  1. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    Does Don Knuth know anything about computing?

    From http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1193856&rll=1:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    ...
    Andrew: Vendors of multicore processors have expressed frustration
    at the difficulty of moving developers to this model. As a former
    professor, what thoughts do you have on this transition and how to
    make it happen? Is it a question of proper tools, such as better
    native support for concurrency in languages, or of execution
    frameworks? Or are there other solutions?

    Donald: I don’t want to duck your question entirely. I might as well
    flame a bit about my personal unhappiness with the current trend
    toward multicore architecture. To me, it looks more or less like the
    hardware designers have run out of ideas, and that they’re trying to
    pass the blame for the future demise of Moore’s Law to the software
    writers by giving us machines that work faster only on a few key
    benchmarks! I won’t be surprised at all if the whole multithreading
    idea turns out to be a flop, worse than the "Itanium" approach that
    was supposed to be so terrific—until it turned out that the wished-
    for compilers were basically impossible to write.

    Let me put it this way: During the past 50 years, I’ve written well
    over a thousand programs, many of which have substantial size. I
    can’t think of even five of those programs that would have been
    enhanced noticeably by parallelism or multithreading
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm not in touch with the industry, I just build a little desktop
    system every few years.

    Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)

    Any/all info much appreciated.

    Puddin'

    " ... and the bees made honey in the lion's head."
    - from "If I Had My Way", Blind Willie Johnson
     
    1. Advertising

  2. You're taking the quote out of context by omitting his disclaimer; in the
    preceding paragraph:

    Knuth: "So I decided long ago to stick to what I know best. Other people
    understand parallel machines much better than I do; programmers should
    listen to them, not me, for guidance on how to deal with simultaneity."

    Puddin' Man wrote:
    > I'm not in touch with the industry, I just build a little desktop
    > system every few years.
    >
    > Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    > Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)


    Even a Q9450 will use less than 10W if you're not doing much with it.

    Other major considerations: power supply efficiency, graphics card power,
    boiling more water in a kettle than you actually need.

    If you do build a new computer, what would you actually want to use it for?
    Only by knowing that can we make sensible suggestions.

    Andrew
     
    1. Advertising

  3. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:07:36 +0100, "Andrew Morton" <> wrote:

    >You're taking the quote out of context by omitting his disclaimer; in the
    >preceding paragraph:


    I don't think so ...

    >Knuth: "So I decided long ago to stick to what I know best. Other people
    >understand parallel machines much better than I do; programmers should
    >listen to them, not me, for guidance on how to deal with simultaneity."


    For me, that part of the interview plays kinda like:

    "Well, you've written tons on serial processing. Will you now write/
    publish algorithms on parallelism?

    "No. It would take forever, the way I write, and it changes too quickly.
    There are others devoting their time to the subject: anyone who
    thinks it will be relevant for them is free to look to the others for
    guidance."

    Then he goes on to explain how parallelism is largely irrelevant
    for his own common computer usage.

    >Puddin' Man wrote:
    >> I'm not in touch with the industry, I just build a little desktop
    >> system every few years.
    >>
    >> Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    >> Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)

    >
    >Even a Q9450 will use less than 10W if you're not doing much with it.


    What part of "Inexpensive" is it that you don't understand? :)

    >Other major considerations: power supply efficiency, graphics card power,
    >boiling more water in a kettle than you actually need.
    >
    >If you do build a new computer, what would you actually want to use it for?
    >Only by knowing that can we make sensible suggestions.


    It was kinda implied that my common usage would be very similar to Knuth's,
    but ...

    Desktop system, Windows, Email client, Usenet client, editor, multiple
    instances of IE6, occasional programming.

    Puddin'

    " ... and the bees made honey in the lion's head."
    - from "If I Had My Way", Blind Willie Johnson
     
  4. Puddin' Man wrote:
    >>> Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    >>> Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)

    >>
    >> Even a Q9450 will use less than 10W if you're not doing much with it.

    >
    > What part of "Inexpensive" is it that you don't understand? :)


    Sorry, I didn't emphasise the "even" part enough: what I was trying to imply
    is that even the more powerful Intel CPUs now consume considerably less
    power than the Prescott currently heating my office.

    >> If you do build a new computer, what would you actually want to use
    >> it for? Only by knowing that can we make sensible suggestions.

    >
    > It was kinda implied that my common usage would be very similar to
    > Knuth's, but ...
    >
    > Desktop system, Windows, Email client, Usenet client, editor, multiple
    > instances of IE6, occasional programming.


    [We're not very good at this "implying" thing, are we :)]

    For light usage, I'd suggest any of the lower price Core2 Duo processors. If
    you end up using Vista as the OS, experience tells me you should get at
    least 2GB of RAM. Seeing as Windows (2000/XP/whatever) will make use of dual
    cores and single-core Intel processors (from what I've read, it would be
    painful to use an Atom processor) aren't readily available, you might as
    well get a dual-core processor.

    HTH

    Andrew
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Guest

    On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:09:19 -0500, Puddin' Man
    <> wrote:


    >I'm not in touch with the industry, I just build a little desktop
    >system every few years.
    >
    >Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    >Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)
    >
    >Any/all info much appreciated.


    Intel Celeron 420/430/440:
    New Low-End Vs. Old Middle-End
    http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-celeron-420-440-page1.html

    Intel Celeron 440 vs. AMD Sempron 3600+
    2-GHz Budget CPUs Battle It Out
    http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=663

    >
    > Puddin'
    >
    >" ... and the bees made honey in the lion's head."
    > - from "If I Had My Way", Blind Willie Johnson
     
  6. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Puddin' Man wrote:
    > I'm not in touch with the industry, I just build a little desktop
    > system every few years.
    >
    > Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    > Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)
    >
    > Any/all info much appreciated.



    There are still single-core processors available from the two major
    processor companies, such as the AMD Sempron, or the Intel Celeron. Both
    of those single-core versions are relegated to very low-end laptop
    functions.

    There's also single-core specialty processors such as AMD Geode, Intel
    Atom, or VIA C7. They are basically meant for the embedded market.

    But trust me when I say, a dual-core is really the smallest thing you
    should be looking for. Even if individual programs aren't designed for
    multi-core, there is rarely ever just a single program ever running on
    modern operating systems, even on simple "Internet surfing and word
    processing" machines. As soon as an OS is capable of multitasking, then
    it can make use of multiple threads. There's always background processes
    running, and a multitasking OS is aided greatly by having multiple cores
    to send tasks off to.

    Yousuf Khan
     
  7. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:41:07 -0400, Yousuf Khan <> wrote:

    >Puddin' Man wrote:
    >> I'm not in touch with the industry, I just build a little desktop
    >> system every few years.
    >>
    >> Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    >> Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)
    >>
    >> Any/all info much appreciated.

    >
    >
    >There are still single-core processors available from the two major
    >processor companies, such as the AMD Sempron, or the Intel Celeron. Both
    >of those single-core versions are relegated to very low-end laptop
    >functions.


    And not really suitable for a gen'l purpose (non-cheapo) desktop?

    >There's also single-core specialty processors such as AMD Geode, Intel
    >Atom, or VIA C7. They are basically meant for the embedded market.


    Also not suitable?

    >But trust me when I say, a dual-core is really the smallest thing you
    >should be looking for. Even if individual programs aren't designed for
    >multi-core, there is rarely ever just a single program ever running on
    >modern operating systems, even on simple "Internet surfing and word
    >processing" machines. As soon as an OS is capable of multitasking, then
    >it can make use of multiple threads. There's always background processes
    >running, and a multitasking OS is aided greatly by having multiple cores
    >to send tasks off to.


    In the context of the common nickel/dime usage we've been discussing,
    this is simply not true.

    I originally considered the issue in detail back when "dualies" hit
    the market and begat a tiny culture.

    Yes, there are numerous background processes running, and a
    multitasking OS can conceivably allocate differing threads to
    different cores. But the threads have to be demanding material cpu
    cycles for this to have a non-trivial effect. In common usage,
    they don't.

    I now have Email client, Usenet client, editor, multiple instances
    of IE6 and some utility windows open. I am an average user. As I
    type in the editor, I run Task Mngr and find (no surprise) that I am
    using under 10% of cpu cycles available from my old Celeron 3ghz.
    Most of the "under 10%" is consumed by Spybot S/D Teatime. For this
    stuff, a 2nd (3rd, 4th, ... 15th, 16th etc) core would be about
    as useful as the tits on a boar hog.

    What you say is true for someone running multiple cycle-intensive
    apps. Another guy running multiple i/o intensive apps would be
    better off with a good single-core and spending extra $ on
    hi-performance i/o subsystem.

    The only reason I'd spring for dual-core for the nickel/dime usage
    would be because Intel/AMD have virtually abandoned the market for
    good, inexpensive single-core cpu's (for desktop). I will assume
    they have done so until I have evidence to the contrary.

    They have been corrupted by the hi-tech glitz that their marketing
    dept's have chosen to hustle (to the exclusion of certain common
    computing needs). No?

    P

    " ... and the bees made honey in the lion's head."
    - from "If I Had My Way", Blind Willie Johnson
     
  8. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    > Does Don Knuth know anything about computing?
    >

    Donald Knuth knows quite a lot about computing. The question is
    whether he is the source to go to as computing moves away from single
    core processors, and the answer is that he is not. Even he says so:

    "Other people understand parallel machines much better than I do;
    programmers should listen to them, not me, for guidance on how to deal
    with simultaneity."

    His denigration of the usefulness of multiple cores has to be viewed
    in that light. Knuth claims that those who will most benefit from
    multiple cores are not typical users, but we're probably more typical
    than he is. Most users will get some benefit from at least one more
    core. I'd advise buying a single core platform only where size,
    noise, or power consumption are critical.

    Robert.
     
  9. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    >> Does Don Knuth know anything about computing?
    >>

    >Donald Knuth knows quite a lot about computing. The question is
    >whether he is the source to go to as computing moves away from single
    >core processors, and the answer is that he is not. Even he says so:
    >
    >"Other people understand parallel machines much better than I do;
    >programmers should listen to them, not me, for guidance on how to deal
    >with simultaneity."


    I've already discussed Knuth's position. You can read or not read
    previous posts as you wish.

    It's not enough that Knuth is great at algorithms. He is like
    "a religion/culture of one" in that he looks at computing -only-
    for computing's sake regardless of what the industry, etc is saying.
    He is impervious to hype.

    >His denigration of the usefulness of multiple cores has to be viewed
    >in that light. Knuth claims that those who will most benefit from
    >multiple cores are not typical users,


    They're not. Unless you belong to a "multi-core religion", it's
    indisputable (for common apps). Did you run a "dualie" years ago? :)

    >but we're probably more typical
    >than he is.


    Speak for yourself. Near as I can tell, Knuth's common usage is -very-
    similar to mine.

    >Most users will get some benefit from at least one more
    >core.


    That's not disputed. Becomes a question of degree. Do you imagine
    you could measure it (again, for common usage as we've been discussing)?
    I'm not talking about a seat-of-the-pants guess or an obviously biased
    estimate.

    >I'd advise buying a single core platform only where size,
    >noise, or power consumption are critical.


    There may well be no practical alternative to multi-core for desktop,
    because it appears that m-c is all they want to produce/market.

    P


    " ... and the bees made honey in the lion's head."
    - from "If I Had My Way", Blind Willie Johnson
     
  10. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Jul 30, 5:50 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers <> wrote:
    > >On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    > >> Does Don Knuth know anything about computing?

    >
    > >Donald Knuth knows quite a lot about computing.  The question is
    > >whether he is the source to go to as computing moves away from single
    > >core processors, and the answer is that he is not.  Even he says so:

    >
    > >"Other people understand parallel machines much better than I do;
    > >programmers should listen to them, not me, for guidance on how to deal
    > >with simultaneity."

    >
    > I've already discussed Knuth's position. You can read or not read
    > previous posts as you wish.
    >

    I wasn't soliciting your wisdom about Knuth. I've already very tartly
    discussed the appropriateness of constantly referring to him when the
    world of hardware he imagined is rapidly vanishing. We need to pin a
    medal on the man and stop referring to him. Time to get a move-on.
    Time's a wasting and Knuth has become a distraction.

    > It's not enough that Knuth is great at algorithms. He is like
    > "a religion/culture of one" in that he looks at computing -only-
    > for computing's sake regardless of what the industry, etc is saying.
    > He is impervious to hype.
    >

    That's just plain silly. Mathematicians don't make microprocessors.
    Manufacturers do. "I've got some great ideas, if only they'd abandon
    backward compatibility." This man is not in touch with reality.

    > >His denigration of the usefulness of multiple cores has to be viewed
    > >in that light.  Knuth claims that those who will most benefit from
    > >multiple cores are not typical users,

    >
    > They're not. Unless you belong to a "multi-core religion", it's
    > indisputable (for common apps). Did you run a "dualie" years ago? :)
    >
    > >but we're probably more typical
    > >than he is.  

    >
    > Speak for yourself. Near as I can tell, Knuth's common usage is -very-
    > similar to mine.
    >
    > >Most users will get some benefit from at least one more
    > >core.  

    >
    > That's not disputed. Becomes a question of degree. Do you imagine
    > you could measure it (again, for common usage as we've been discussing)?
    > I'm not talking about a seat-of-the-pants guess or an obviously biased
    > estimate.
    >

    The metric (did I just say that?) that matters most is perceived
    responsiveness, and it's not such an easy thing to measure. I don't
    get all the responsiveness I want all the time in spite of using a
    modern dual core processor, and I've heard many others say the same.
    The fact that your second core is idling most of the time doesn't
    matter if it keeps your browser from becoming unresponsive at awkward
    moments.

    > >I'd advise buying a single core platform only where size,
    > >noise, or power consumption are critical.

    >
    > There may well be no practical alternative to multi-core for desktop,
    > because it appears that m-c is all they want to produce/market.
    >

    And since manufacturers have become very good at minimizing power
    consumption by hardware that idles, what incentive is there for you to
    hunt down that single core machine, anyway? Would you buy the single
    core processor if it were more expensive, as it should be?

    Robert.
     
  11. Nate Edel

    Nate Edel Guest

    Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    > They're not. Unless you belong to a "multi-core religion", it's
    > indisputable (for common apps). Did you run a "dualie" years ago? :)


    Yup. The majority (narrowly) of my professional coding (and much of my
    sysadmin experience) experience is on dual-cpu boxes going back to the PPro
    (and I did work on a nonstandard multi-socket P-Classic server, ugh),
    although at some point in a several more years it will balance out with if I
    can't talk my employer into getting the dual-dual or dual-quad for my
    desktop :)

    > There may well be no practical alternative to multi-core for desktop,
    > because it appears that m-c is all they want to produce/market.


    Just buy cheapie Celerons, if that's all you need. Meanwhile, the cost
    difference between a 3ghz E6850 and a hypothetical 3ghz Core Solo is not
    going to be fairly significant.

    GUIs are inherently parallel.

    --
    Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
    preferred email |
    is "nate" at the | "This humorous tagline or quotation is not in service."
    posting domain |
     
  12. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >On Jul 30, 5:50 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers <> wrote:
    >> >On Jul 28, 1:09 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    >> >> Does Don Knuth know anything about computing?

    >>
    >> >Donald Knuth knows quite a lot about computing.  The question is
    >> >whether he is the source to go to as computing moves away from single
    >> >core processors, and the answer is that he is not.  Even he says so:

    >>
    >> >"Other people understand parallel machines much better than I do;
    >> >programmers should listen to them, not me, for guidance on how to deal
    >> >with simultaneity."

    >>
    >> I've already discussed Knuth's position. You can read or not read
    >> previous posts as you wish.
    >>

    >I wasn't soliciting your wisdom about Knuth. I've already very tartly
    >discussed the appropriateness of constantly referring to him when the
    >world of hardware he imagined is rapidly vanishing. We need to pin a
    >medal on the man and stop referring to him. Time to get a move-on.
    >Time's a wasting and Knuth has become a distraction.


    To yourself no doubt. Not to me.

    >> It's not enough that Knuth is great at algorithms. He is like
    >> "a religion/culture of one" in that he looks at computing -only-
    >> for computing's sake regardless of what the industry, etc is saying.
    >> He is impervious to hype.
    >>

    >That's just plain silly.


    What is silly? That he is impervious to hype??

    > Mathematicians don't make microprocessors.
    >Manufacturers do. "I've got some great ideas, if only they'd abandon
    >backward compatibility."


    You wanna point to a source for your "quote" of Knuth's words? :)

    >This man is not in touch with reality.


    Perhaps not with your particular reality ...

    I'm not into hero worship at all. It's just that I look and look and
    look and I see noone in the industry who has a valid long-term claim
    to independent thinking on such subjects. The garbage-hype seems to
    affect Knuth like water off a duck's back.

    I think Knuth makes a valid point, and I'm not much concerned with
    the fact that you cannot see it.

    >> >His denigration of the usefulness of multiple cores has to be viewed
    >> >in that light.  Knuth claims that those who will most benefit from
    >> >multiple cores are not typical users,

    >>
    >> They're not. Unless you belong to a "multi-core religion", it's
    >> indisputable (for common apps). Did you run a "dualie" years ago? :)
    >>
    >> >but we're probably more typical
    >> >than he is.  

    >>
    >> Speak for yourself. Near as I can tell, Knuth's common usage is -very-
    >> similar to mine.
    >>
    >> >Most users will get some benefit from at least one more
    >> >core.  

    >>
    >> That's not disputed. Becomes a question of degree. Do you imagine
    >> you could measure it (again, for common usage as we've been discussing)?
    >> I'm not talking about a seat-of-the-pants guess or an obviously biased
    >> estimate.
    >>

    >The metric (did I just say that?) that matters most is perceived
    >responsiveness,


    Ahhhhh. Perception! :)

    >and it's not such an easy thing to measure. I don't
    >get all the responsiveness I want all the time in spite of using a
    >modern dual core processor, and I've heard many others say the same.
    >The fact that your second core is idling most of the time doesn't
    >matter if it keeps your browser from becoming unresponsive at awkward
    >moments.


    For Gawd's sake, Bob. In any ordinary circumstance and quite a few
    that are not ordinary, your browser is i/o bound and not in the least
    ready to gobble cpu cycles from additional instruction processors.

    >> >I'd advise buying a single core platform only where size,
    >> >noise, or power consumption are critical.

    >>
    >> There may well be no practical alternative to multi-core for desktop,
    >> because it appears that m-c is all they want to produce/market.
    >>

    >And since manufacturers have become very good at minimizing power
    >consumption by hardware that idles, what incentive is there for you to
    >hunt down that single core machine, anyway? Would you buy the single
    >core processor if it were more expensive,


    All other things being equal, no.

    >as it should be?


    It shouldn't be.

    P

    " ... and the bees made honey in the lion's head."
    - from "If I Had My Way", Blind Willie Johnson
     
  13. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Jul 30, 11:04 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers <> wrote:


    > >> It's not enough that Knuth is great at algorithms. He is like
    > >> "a religion/culture of one" in that he looks at computing -only-
    > >> for computing's sake regardless of what the industry, etc is saying.
    > >> He is impervious to hype.

    >
    > >That's just plain silly.

    >
    > What is silly? That he is impervious to hype??
    >

    It's silly on two counts:

    1. That Knuth is impervious to hype, or that Knuth doesn't have his
    own silly hangups, as manifestly he does. Being a bit of a crank
    isn't a sin, and smart people have their moments just like everyone
    else.

    2. That there are not other similarly informed and talented users
    capable of making discriminations equally or even more insightful and
    valid.

    > > Mathematicians don't make microprocessors.
    > >Manufacturers do.  "I've got some great ideas, if only they'd abandon
    > >backward compatibility."  

    >

    The exact quote:

    "(But my MMIX design contains several ideas that would substantially
    improve the current performance of the kinds of programs that concern
    me most—at the cost of incompatibility with legacy x86 programs.)"

    I'm going to be even rougher on the sainted Knuth. Many of us could
    design better microprocessors for our own applications if the rest of
    the world could be told to take hike. No one but Knuth would be
    quoted for such nonsense.

    > You wanna point to a source for your "quote" of Knuth's words? :)
    >
    > >This man is not in touch with reality.

    >
    > Perhaps not with your particular reality ...
    >

    You think so? You think there's a chip manufacturer out there who's
    going to build a one-off microprocessor to compete with x86? You're
    out of touch with reality, too.

    > I'm not into hero worship at all. It's just that I look and look and
    > look and I see noone in the industry who has a valid long-term claim
    > to independent thinking on such subjects. The garbage-hype seems to
    > affect Knuth like water off a duck's back.
    >
    > I think Knuth makes a valid point, and I'm not much concerned with
    > the fact that you cannot see it.
    >

    What new information are you conveying here? Do you have any notion
    of how many really, really smart people there are in this business?
    Knuth's tomes will no longer be so central and he doesn't like it.
    *shrug*

    >
    > >The metric (did I just say that?) that matters most is perceived
    > >responsiveness,

    >
    > Ahhhhh. Perception! :)
    >

    What's this? Argumentation by derision? Most desktop users care
    about how responsive the system is. A system that won't track natural
    mouse movements is too slow, and, in some circumstances, nearly
    useless. Perception matters more than anything else. Knuth's
    theoretical considerations (and yours) are the kind of analysis that
    might be appropriate for HPC or server applications.

    > >and it's not such an easy thing to measure.  I don't
    > >get all the responsiveness I want all the time in spite of using a
    > >modern dual core processor, and I've heard many others say the same.
    > >The fact that your second core is idling most of the time doesn't
    > >matter if it keeps your browser from becoming unresponsive at awkward
    > >moments.

    >
    > For Gawd's sake, Bob. In any ordinary circumstance and quite a few
    > that are not ordinary, your browser is i/o bound and not in the least
    > ready to gobble cpu cycles from additional instruction processors.
    >

    I didn't just pick the example out of the air. It's easy to see
    what's gobbling cycles when the system becomes unresponsive. If I'm
    having trouble navigating tabs, it's not an I/O problem, and the
    system monitor agrees.

    > >> >I'd advise buying a single core platform only where size,
    > >> >noise, or power consumption are critical.

    >
    > >> There may well be no practical alternative to multi-core for desktop,
    > >> because it appears that m-c is all they want to produce/market.

    >
    > >And since manufacturers have become very good at minimizing power
    > >consumption by hardware that idles, what incentive is there for you to
    > >hunt down that single core machine, anyway?  Would you buy the single
    > >core processor if it were more expensive,

    >
    > All other things being equal, no.
    >
    > >as it should be?

    >
    > It shouldn't be.
    >

    It has to be worth a manufacturer's while to offer a separate
    product. Apparently, AMD thinks it's worth it enough to sell three
    core chips, which I assume are sold at a lower price. Unless the cost
    saving of salvaging dual core chips with one bad core is significant,
    then the product you want to buy is just one more SKU to keep track of
    and market. The market for such chips is already well-served by other
    products, so it's going to be a low-volume product. The only
    incentive I can see is that some customers will just demand it, in
    which case, they can be expected to pay more.

    Robert.
     
  14. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:35:46 -0500, General Schvantzkopf <> wrote:

    >>
    >> The only reason I'd spring for dual-core for the nickel/dime usage would
    >> be because Intel/AMD have virtually abandoned the market for good,
    >> inexpensive single-core cpu's (for desktop). I will assume they have
    >> done so until I have evidence to the contrary.

    >
    >The Atom and the C7 are exactly what you are looking for. I've played
    >with the $180 Everest C7 box and it's runs Fedora just fine. If all you
    >want to do is surf the web, do e-mail and run OpenOffice, these
    >processors are more than good enough. For basic desktop computing CPUs
    >have been fast enough for years. The current crop of netbook processors
    >like the Atom, and the C7, can do the job on a few watts of power. You
    >can't run Vista on these things but you can run any distro of Linux that
    >you want. Microsoft has kept a barebones version of XP around for use on
    >netbooks so they wouldn't be left out of the netbook market.


    I'm not a Linux guy.

    Mea culpa. I should have explicitly queried for "A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    Core cpu" for desktop, implying that at least moderately robust chipset,
    motherboards, etc for desktop existed.

    >I should add that the appeal of these processors is their extremely low
    >power consumption, not their price. If you look at pricewatch you'll find
    >bottom of the line dual core AMD systems for around $200, about the same
    >as the Everest C7 box.


    And that would also be an issue.

    Thx,
    P

    "I Ain't Blind, I Just Don't Wanna See"
    - the title of a tune by Little Joe Blue, maybe 1966
     
  15. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    You don't understand.

    Knuth is not the issue.

    I am not the issue.

    You are not the issue.

    The issue is cpu cycle utilization.

    Now. The net has long been rife with experts and genii who are
    looking for a pissing contest. I am just a po' feller who counts
    idle cpu cycles.

    So I cannot further discuss the matter with you.

    Goo-bye, S'Long.

    Puddin'

    "I Ain't Blind, I Just Don't Wanna See"
    - the title of a tune by Little Joe Blue, maybe 1966


    On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:16:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >On Jul 30, 11:04 pm, Puddin' Man <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Robert Myers <> wrote:

    >
    >> >> It's not enough that Knuth is great at algorithms. He is like
    >> >> "a religion/culture of one" in that he looks at computing -only-
    >> >> for computing's sake regardless of what the industry, etc is saying.
    >> >> He is impervious to hype.

    >>
    >> >That's just plain silly.

    >>
    >> What is silly? That he is impervious to hype??
    >>

    >It's silly on two counts:
    >
    >1. That Knuth is impervious to hype, or that Knuth doesn't have his
    >own silly hangups, as manifestly he does. Being a bit of a crank
    >isn't a sin, and smart people have their moments just like everyone
    >else.
    >
    >2. That there are not other similarly informed and talented users
    >capable of making discriminations equally or even more insightful and
    >valid.
    >
    >> > Mathematicians don't make microprocessors.
    >> >Manufacturers do.  "I've got some great ideas, if only they'd abandon
    >> >backward compatibility."  

    >>

    >The exact quote:
    >
    >"(But my MMIX design contains several ideas that would substantially
    >improve the current performance of the kinds of programs that concern
    >me most—at the cost of incompatibility with legacy x86 programs.)"
    >
    >I'm going to be even rougher on the sainted Knuth. Many of us could
    >design better microprocessors for our own applications if the rest of
    >the world could be told to take hike. No one but Knuth would be
    >quoted for such nonsense.
    >
    >> You wanna point to a source for your "quote" of Knuth's words? :)
    >>
    >> >This man is not in touch with reality.

    >>
    >> Perhaps not with your particular reality ...
    >>

    >You think so? You think there's a chip manufacturer out there who's
    >going to build a one-off microprocessor to compete with x86? You're
    >out of touch with reality, too.
    >
    >> I'm not into hero worship at all. It's just that I look and look and
    >> look and I see noone in the industry who has a valid long-term claim
    >> to independent thinking on such subjects. The garbage-hype seems to
    >> affect Knuth like water off a duck's back.
    >>
    >> I think Knuth makes a valid point, and I'm not much concerned with
    >> the fact that you cannot see it.
    >>

    >What new information are you conveying here? Do you have any notion
    >of how many really, really smart people there are in this business?
    >Knuth's tomes will no longer be so central and he doesn't like it.
    >*shrug*
    >
    >>
    >> >The metric (did I just say that?) that matters most is perceived
    >> >responsiveness,

    >>
    >> Ahhhhh. Perception! :)
    >>

    >What's this? Argumentation by derision? Most desktop users care
    >about how responsive the system is. A system that won't track natural
    >mouse movements is too slow, and, in some circumstances, nearly
    >useless. Perception matters more than anything else. Knuth's
    >theoretical considerations (and yours) are the kind of analysis that
    >might be appropriate for HPC or server applications.
    >
    >> >and it's not such an easy thing to measure.  I don't
    >> >get all the responsiveness I want all the time in spite of using a
    >> >modern dual core processor, and I've heard many others say the same.
    >> >The fact that your second core is idling most of the time doesn't
    >> >matter if it keeps your browser from becoming unresponsive at awkward
    >> >moments.

    >>
    >> For Gawd's sake, Bob. In any ordinary circumstance and quite a few
    >> that are not ordinary, your browser is i/o bound and not in the least
    >> ready to gobble cpu cycles from additional instruction processors.
    >>

    >I didn't just pick the example out of the air. It's easy to see
    >what's gobbling cycles when the system becomes unresponsive. If I'm
    >having trouble navigating tabs, it's not an I/O problem, and the
    >system monitor agrees.
    >
    >> >> >I'd advise buying a single core platform only where size,
    >> >> >noise, or power consumption are critical.

    >>
    >> >> There may well be no practical alternative to multi-core for desktop,
    >> >> because it appears that m-c is all they want to produce/market.

    >>
    >> >And since manufacturers have become very good at minimizing power
    >> >consumption by hardware that idles, what incentive is there for you to
    >> >hunt down that single core machine, anyway?  Would you buy the single
    >> >core processor if it were more expensive,

    >>
    >> All other things being equal, no.
    >>
    >> >as it should be?

    >>
    >> It shouldn't be.
    >>

    >It has to be worth a manufacturer's while to offer a separate
    >product. Apparently, AMD thinks it's worth it enough to sell three
    >core chips, which I assume are sold at a lower price. Unless the cost
    >saving of salvaging dual core chips with one bad core is significant,
    >then the product you want to buy is just one more SKU to keep track of
    >and market. The market for such chips is already well-served by other
    >products, so it's going to be a low-volume product. The only
    >incentive I can see is that some customers will just demand it, in
    >which case, they can be expected to pay more.
    >
    >Robert.
     
  16. Puddin' Man wrote:
    > Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    > Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)
    >


    Apparently not, but some motherboards allow you to disable cores through the
    BIOS.

    Note that Windows may not work if you install it with [one | two] cores
    enabled and then try to boot it with [two | one] core enabled.

    But I read that if you're doing multi-threading in your programming and
    using those programs on other computers which might have multi-core
    processors installed, it is safer to do the testing on a multi-core system
    so that any threading issues are more likely to appear.

    On the positive side, "Nehalem" processors will be available in a few months
    with perhaps as many as eight cores <d&c>.

    Andrew
     
  17. Robert Myers

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Jul 31, 9:58 am, Puddin' Man <> wrote:

    >
    > The issue is cpu cycle utilization.
    >
    > Now. The net has long been rife with experts and genii who are
    > looking for a pissing contest. I am just a po' feller who counts
    > idle cpu cycles.
    >

    If you don't want a pissing contest then don't make extravagant claims
    based on your opinion of one man and don't demand that your
    correspondent produce "exact quotes" that you should have been able to
    find yourself by reading the article you cited.

    The issue *isn't* average utilization, which you call CPU cycles, if
    the system is being used interactively. If you want to persist in
    seeing it that way, that's your business.

    As to your snarky remarks about genii and experts, I make no claim to
    be either. In the name of meeting your personal needs, you've spread
    unhelpful misconceptions in a place where it might matter. The future
    is concurrent processing, and the sooner everyone starts operating
    that way, the better off we'll be. As it stands, the state of the art
    is pathetic and Knuth is a negative contributor.

    Robert.
     
  18. Puddin' Man

    Puddin' Man Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:34:27 +0100, "Andrew Morton" <> wrote:

    >Puddin' Man wrote:
    >> Does Intel (or AMD for that matter) make A Good, Inexpensive Single-
    >> Core cpu that doesn't heat the entire county (like Prescott)?? :)
    >>

    >
    >Apparently not, but some motherboards allow you to disable cores through the
    >BIOS.


    To conserve watt consumption, I suppose.

    >Note that Windows may not work if you install it with [one | two] cores
    >enabled and then try to boot it with [two | one] core enabled.


    Perhaps a registry fiddling would be needed.

    >But I read that if you're doing multi-threading in your programming and
    >using those programs on other computers which might have multi-core
    >processors installed, it is safer to do the testing on a multi-core system
    >so that any threading issues are more likely to appear.


    A potentially valid concern for some.

    >On the positive side, "Nehalem" processors will be available in a few months
    >with perhaps as many as eight cores <d&c>.


    Surprising noone.

    Sun Niagara 2 8-core has been available 9-10 months? Costs a bunch, 'tho,
    and it ain't x86 (by a long shot).

    P

    "I Ain't Blind, I Just Don't Wanna See"
    - the title of a tune by Little Joe Blue, maybe 1966
     
  19. Puddin' Man wrote:
    > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:34:27 +0100, "Andrew Morton"
    >> Note that Windows may not work if you install it with [one | two]
    >> cores enabled and then try to boot it with [two | one] core enabled.

    >
    > Perhaps a registry fiddling would be needed.


    No, it installs a different hardware abstraction layer (HAL).

    Andrew
     
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Lewis
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,380
    Richard Hopkins
    Apr 27, 2005
  2. Bob

    Good, Inexpensive Dual DVI?

    Bob, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Nvidia
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    272
    erik©
    Mar 9, 2005
  3. CharlesBlackstone

    Opteron - single dual core vs two single cores

    CharlesBlackstone, Aug 5, 2006, in forum: AMD Overclocking
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,203
    Scott Alfter
    Aug 19, 2006
  4. js
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    379
  5. Joe

    comparing duel core vs. single core

    Joe, Dec 8, 2007, in forum: Motherboards
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    852
Loading...

Share This Page