OT: What is this Intel Parallel Studio?

They have gotta be joking; the so-called multiple cores must ship instructions and data out the same pins so cannot run in parallel in the long term (am ignoring short term storage in CPU cache).

Hmm...

Well, I suppose if Intel can get people writing software that would run faster on systems with multiple memory buses, then they'll be able to justify pushing such systems into the general market.

They can also push the advantages of bigger caches.

But I'm sure Microsoft will quickly consume any performance increase with yet more software bloat.

Sylvia.

What's with the "so-called"? The current generation of CPUs do have multiple cores.

That's only an issue if you're saturating the memory bandwidth, and there are plenty of applications which don't.

My impression that it's actually rather few of them!

So use a solid state drive as your virtual memory volume.

Yet another misdirected, follow the dumb flock dimwit.

Meow

It's seemed fair. Even ordinary operations take just as long as ever despite the huge increase in bus, cpu and memory speeds.

Sylvia.

How would that help?

Sylvia.

"So-called" refers to the fact that only server boards are able to take advantage of that hardware, AND one _must_ also use software written for the multiple cores. This means that almost all of the private PC users have useless bloat hardware and were cheated via improper marketing hype.

Eh? Desktop and laptop PCs with multi-core CPUs seem to do just fine scheduling threads across them under Win2K, XP, Vista, Win 7, Linux, the Mac OS, etc.?

It's true that a lot of software isn't multi-threaded yet, although it's been changing a lot this past year -- LTSpice now is, EM simulators from the likes of Agilent and AWR are, AutoCAD and SolidWorks are, and of course many games are. Even a simple dual-core system is nice in that if you have some old non-multi-threaded number cruncher simulation running: Having another free core around allows the Usenet reading/posting you do while waiting for it to finish :-) to run quickly.

I suppose so, but I'm guessing that after somewhere in the late '90s the average PC buyer no longer had much of a clue as to what, exactly, they were buying at the hardware level. PCs are like any other appliance today... they sell more on "looks" (flashly graphical demos and -- particularly for laptops -- mechanical design) tha anything related to the technical specs.

---Joel

That was always possible just by tweaking the process priorities.

Sylvia.

The nice thing in a dual core architecture is that the other core can be used to run the OS and the user interface bells and whistles, while the other core can be used for actual work.

In some way, this arrangement resembles a time sharing systems I used in the 1970's, one processor with 32 KW memory was running the OS, while the other core with the same amount of memory served dozens of simultaneous time share users.

Anyway, I do not understand what is the point with four or more core processors on desktop, with only one core doing some useful work, while 3+ cores will be used just to run the OS. I do not promise to eat my hat, since no doubt Microsoft is going to find some "useful" bells and whistles to run on any additional cores :-).

Paul

Intel multiple cores and before that hyperthreading have been around for a while now as have the operating systems to cater for them. Plenty of consumer software is not multithreading, but a lot of seriously compute bound stuff for image or signal processing is fully multithreaded and will use all CPUs if you allow it too. Some amateur chess engines use all available cores if you let them. Makes the machine slow...

Obviously you need to use software that can use multiple cores to gain the performance advantage. But there is plenty of that about if you do not live in the stone age.

I am sure that plenty of end users have multicore CPUs and graphics engines that are only really ever stretched when they run 3D games. However, PC computer games is a very big domestic market segment.

Regards, Martin Brown

It won't, but did you really expect AlwaysWrong to be of any help?

The things they incorporate are things that are asked for, so adding the code to accommodate those 'asked for' things would hardly qualify as bloat.

The problem here is the paradigm for incorporation of an operational element that *they* decide whether you need or not, and leave you no selection 'switches' by which to cycle that choice in or out of your personal set-up.

In other words, modularized, and selectable.

Yes, much like Linux is.

Since the Windows boys cannot make it that way, idiots call their paradigm 'bloat'.

To me, that means that YOU did not examine the requirements analysis.

However Linux is far more operator labor intensive, and you must also already know that only the top 25% of users could be comfortable on a Linux box. Granted, now the distros are getting more and more pushbutton, the mental and technical knowledge to use Linux based "OSes" is higher than the "any monkey can use it" paradigm an OS like Windows

So Windows wins for several reasons in the consumer realm. Mainly because most folks are nowhere near the intelligence or technical prowess levels required to immerse themselves in Linux based worlds. They would rather have fat, dumb, and happy, and call support if they need help.

Linux is gaining ground in business and embedded and network management industries. More so even than most know or believe.

Kernels can be small. An OS, however, can grow to be very large, especially over long time periods. All one needs do is examine history to see that.

Making it all work together is the task.

So the question one needs ask one's self is "Does that goal get reached."

Meow

Dual core unit here, now over four years old. My second. The first ran for three years before I got this one, so I have been on dual CPU or core for over seven years now, and I have been on Vista and Windows 7 since they offered beta ISOs.

They DO make a difference. I would never go back, and even the MAME (as an example) emulators of late would likely puke on an old single core machine just by their more modern video implementations alone.

They barely run on a PS3 with Linux, due to the handcuffing thing.

Exactly!

Applications (games are applications) already do. Same can be said for distributed computing apps like BOINC