Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
![]() |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 8
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The average user seems to not understand the reason for ungrading to a newer computers with multiple cores. The intel commercials target the consumer by saying, 'dual core -do more' which is pretty vague at best. The vast majority of people still have a Pentium III, Celeron or a Pentium 4 at their office or at home.
The average user I would define as being your typical person working an 'office type job' that just drones about their daily tasks saving their 401k for retirement and possibly building trust funds for their kids. They get up and get the kids ready, head off to work in bumper to bumper traffic for 15-30min. They get to the office check their e-mail, chit chat a bit and see if they have any meetings or documents to type. Also, they really don't pay much attention to technology or technobable that they totally don't understand to begin with as it's just some meaningless background noise in their lives. They are machines designed for the purpose sort out relevant from non-relevant. They are the average 'worker bees' who might have attended a State University in a program such as law, sociology..etc or otherwise work a job similiar to marketing, book keeping..etc In 2009 Intel supposely will introduce the Octo Core(8-cores). The problem I can see is that there is no 'killer App' designed to take advantage of a quad core much less an octo core. How can Intel keep up with the pace of technological develope without support from the majority of average people to buy these higher performance computers? Distributed computing, gamers, game developers, scientific community, graphic artists,etc are all a limited amount of customers in the multipe core industry. Multiple cores doesn't make sense yet to most people. Yet, most people don't realize multiple cores are almost needed to eat up all the extra threads and processes running on todays operating systems like Vista Home Premium. I think they desperately need a bigger plan for multiple cores if they want to continue with Moore's Law and doubling processor power every two years. |
||
|
Nortnarg
Senior Cruncher U.S.A. Joined: Nov 23, 2007 Post Count: 184 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
A nice advantage with BOINC is that it will run two work units on a duel processor, (or hyperthreaded) machine. That did not happen on the UD software. I assume that on a quad or more setup that you will run a WU on each processor.
----------------------------------------![]() |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
A nice advantage with BOINC is that it will run two work units on a duel processor, (or hyperthreaded) machine. That did not happen on the UD software. I assume that on a quad or more setup that you will run a WU on each processor. Not recommended to use 2 "cores" on a hypertheaded machine (BOINC profiles should be set to 1 core for those machines), as they are not truly 2 cores and only result in a 15% performance benefit. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I never totally understood the idea of an added virtual processor or hyper-threading on the Pentium 4 or xeon. Was that a pre-attempt at making multiple core processors? A pseudo dual core?
I guess Wiki says it allowed 2 threads to be executed simultaneously. The problem I would see is that there is no gained CPU power involved. Wiki says, 'The processor may stall due to a cache miss, branch misprediction, or data dependency.' One should not always trust Wiki as many errors are present in alot of articles. But, I had a Pentium 4 enabled with hyperthreading and it seemed to only cause problems and lower performance with some applications so I disabled it. A hyperthreaded mutiple core would sound like a possible programming nightmare. I wonder if sections of code can get executed out of order and cause program errors? |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Intel took HT out of the C2D design for that reason and bring them quicker to market. Rumour is though that HT is coming back in the duo's.
----------------------------------------The conflicts and thrashing is exactly the reason WCG recommends setting 1 processor for HT systems. If one has multiple machines with different CPU's the devices need attaching to different profiles, OR, with 5.10, set the local pref to 1.
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hyperthreading is one of those topics that people like to
----------------------------------------Added: Oops. I didn't even mean to talk about hyperthreading when I opened the posting window. Instead, I wanted to add a comment about the first post in the thread. My older first cousin is an office manager. When she first got a home computer, I had to work on the file system every visit I made. This was something I came to take for granted for years. But these last 2 years it has been unnecessary. Once the grandchildren started using her computer whenever they came for a visit, she picked up everything needed quickly. Eventually something happens that changes a modern inconvenience into a necessity and then people learn quickly. Don't write off the 'common man' too soon. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Dec 6, 2007 7:08:10 PM] |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I hope the upcoming Intel Octo-Core in 2008/2009 doesn't end up being just a quad core hyperthreaded to look like 8 cores!
How would that do any good? Intel Nehalem slated for initial production in 2008. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070328fact.htm Intel Nehalem Simultaneous multi-threading (similar to Intel Hyper-Threading Technology) returns to enhance performance and energy efficiency Scalable performance: 1 to 16+ threads, 1 to 8+ cores, scalable cache sizes Looks like hyperthreading will be called, 'multi-threading.' |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Makes me wonder..how will BOINC deal with these changes in microprocessor design being a new version is being created now.
|
||
|
|
![]() |