Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Aug 2005 16:46 UTC, submitted by Nicholas Blachford
Intel "At next week's Intel developer forum, the firm is due to announce a next generation x86 processor core. The current speculation is this new core is going too be based on one of the existing Pentium M cores. I think it's going to be something completely different."
Thread beginning with comment 20586
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Multiple threads vs. multiple processes
by jziegler on Sat 20th Aug 2005 11:42 UTC
jziegler
Member since:
2005-07-14

[disclaimer] I'm not an CPU engineer. I'm not even a great programmer. [/disclaimer].

You keep mentioning that multi-threaded apps would make use of multiple processors. On the other hand, most apps are not written this way.

I think that if you have multiple single-threaded apps running, they would make use of multiple processors as well. Kernel, X server (or other displaying server), window manager (or equivalent), music player and the app you are really "using" - the one which has focus (browser, shell, text editor).

Reply Score: 1

nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

I think that if you have multiple single-threaded apps running, they would make use of multiple processors as well. Kernel, X server (or other displaying server), window manager (or equivalent), music player and the app you are really "using" - the one which has focus (browser, shell, text editor).

Yes, but even taken together the programs you mention do not fully utilise even a single core.

It's about CPU-intensive stuff, e.g. a dual core would allow you to play a (single-threaded) game at full speed while encoding an MPEG in the background.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

Right. What I had in mind was, they could utilise a number of less-performing but much cheaper cores. So, a multiple-core computer with simpler cores than today's processors would still be very well usable as a desktop machine.

Reply Parent Score: 1