Quad core - You don't need it

[Dane D.]

http://www.apcstart.com/site/ndavis/2006/08/1131/wake-up-quad-core-is-overkill

Wake up: quad-core is overkill!
Nathan Davis
Don’t get me wrong — a processor with four cores is cool and all, but it is utterly unnecessary and effectively useless for the time being. The quad-core CPU is not unlike Apple’s Macintosh computer; it’s a niche product and is targetted at a small minority. If you aren’t a money-brandishing enthusiast, you probably don’t want one. A quad-core CPU, that is.

Who is this guy? I read his piece on "Macs too hip for PC users?" and wasn't impressed. So I started to look at his past articles. This one struck me because I am buying a MacPro desktop unit when the second generation comes out. Read it for yourself, he bashes the whole concept of having an quad core setup. Sure most software today doesn't take advantage of multiple cores or cpus, but what about tomorrow's software? The old saying, you can never have enough computing power still holds true. He essentially is saying you don't need this. An analogy to this is like saying you don't need that larger engine in your car or truck. BS, if I need that power, it is there and just knowing I can tap into it, is comforting.

 

[gauchogolfer]

This guy is losing credibility daily.

Anyways, there aren't any quad-core machines available right now, AFAIK. You can buy 2 dual core processors, aka MacPros, but not quad-core. The 'author' then goes on to say that nobody at home takes advantage of all the multi-threading possibilities on hand. Of course, this completely overlooks the fact that the MacPro is not a 'home computer' but a professional workstation. I'm a scientist, not a video/photo guy, but I think that Mathematica will take full advantage of whatever processor configuration I can throw at it, thank you very much.

To say that 'you don't need it' is so shortsighted as to be laughable.

 

[Chaszmyr]

Anyways, there aren't any quad-core machines available right now, AFAIK. You can buy 2 dual core processors, aka MacPros, but not quad-core.

1: There are quad core chips available, but they are rare and expensive.

2. There is really no effective difference (from a user perspective) if your cores are on one or two chips.

 

[gauchogolfer]

1: There are quad core chips available, but they are rare and expensive.

2. There is really no effective difference (from a user perspective) if your cores are on one or two chips.

I should have been more specific here, you're right. I meant that none of the major manufacturers offer quad-core chips in currently-available machines.

For point number two, I just used that to point out what I find to be the author's poor understanding of what they are writing about. At the minimum, the choice of wording was poor.

 

[robbieduncan]

2. There is really no effective difference (from a user perspective) if your cores are on one or two chips.

I'm not so sure. Under full load a 2x2 configuration may well be noticably faster than a 1x4. A 1x4 only has a single FSB, a 2x2 has 2. So in the 1x4 configuration it's possible that the cores will not be able to get access to the data fast enough, especially in stream processing application (like say video encoding). The speed difference could well be noticable to the user...

 

[Abstract]

Someone tell this guy that I run simulations that last 70 hours on a 3.4GHz Pentium 4.

The faster the computer, the better. Just because he doesn't need it doesn't make it worthless.

 

[vohdoun]

Maybe he has tunnel vision...? What about rendering, HD video, music/editing - creation, processing, compiling, gaming... didn't they say once lots of ram was useless...

Make things faster people/programmers will make use of it.

 

[Evangelion]

Click here.. Make sure to watch the video.