Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 23rd Jan 2011 21:29 UTC, submitted by fran
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Although the Tegra 2 chip with integrated dual-core processor has recently been released, NVIDIA is already poised to announce its successor at the Mobile World Congress next month. According to Mike Rayfield of NVIDIA, Tegra 3 may incorporate a quad-core processor with main focus of supporting Android smartphones and tablet PCs."
Thread beginning with comment 459494
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: not new
by WereCatf on Mon 24th Jan 2011 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE: not new"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I don't think going quad core benefits majority of users at all. What really matters is single core performance. Most apps are still single threaded.

I dare to disagree. What apps do a regular home-user use? Well, mostly web browser, video player, perhaps Office for budgeting or whatnot, and maybe a few games. Well, all major web browsers these days do run in several threads, video players do run in several threads, Office isn't CPU-bound anyways, it's more memory-bound, and any modern game these days also runs in several threads.

Now, only games from those are really CPU-bound anyways so quad-core would indeed be a waste. Dual-core would still be somewhat beneficial though, the amount of which can be debated.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: not new
by kokara4a on Mon 24th Jan 2011 12:53 in reply to "RE[2]: not new"
kokara4a Member since:
2005-09-16

You are free to disagree. But in my experience you benefit from more cores only when the apps are heavily multithreaded and the workload is not I/O bound. Firefox, I think is not a good example - I often do a Ctrl-click on a bookmarks folder to open all bookmarks inside it in different tabs. It then freezes for several seconds. Behaves the same under Linux & XP. It's my biggest gripe with Firefox. And for most games, if you haven't invested in a high-end GPU the workload is GPU bound. And, BTW, where are those multithreaded ARM games?

Again, I'm all for multi-core. It's just that I think that 2 cores ought to be enough for anybody ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: not new
by tyrione on Mon 24th Jan 2011 20:30 in reply to "RE[3]: not new"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

You are free to disagree. But in my experience you benefit from more cores only when the apps are heavily multithreaded and the workload is not I/O bound. Firefox, I think is not a good example - I often do a Ctrl-click on a bookmarks folder to open all bookmarks inside it in different tabs. It then freezes for several seconds. Behaves the same under Linux & XP. It's my biggest gripe with Firefox. And for most games, if you haven't invested in a high-end GPU the workload is GPU bound. And, BTW, where are those multithreaded ARM games?

Again, I'm all for multi-core. It's just that I think that 2 cores ought to be enough for anybody ;)


The issue isn't with the overkill of CPU cores. The issue is with the under use of Cores for the OS and the Applications themselves.

We're at the 4 and 8 Core or 6 core baseline in CPUs today and most applications are still holding onto 2 CPU leverage.

Corporations are like Ford. Just give them a few new features and call it a release. Do this for 10 years and people tend to stop buying a Ford.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: not new
by Kochise on Tue 25th Jan 2011 06:03 in reply to "RE[3]: not new"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

"It's just that I think that 2 cores ought to be enough for anybody"

No, 640K *IS* enough for anybody !

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: not new
by Fergy on Tue 25th Jan 2011 09:44 in reply to "RE[3]: not new"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I often do a Ctrl-click on a bookmarks folder to open all bookmarks inside it in different tabs. It then freezes for several seconds. Behaves the same under Linux & XP. It's my biggest gripe with Firefox.

Mozilla is working hard to minimize and optimize IO for Firefox 4 which is probably the main reason why it freezes for several seconds. _But_ having the GUI in a separate thread will unfortunately have to wait for Firefox 4+. They have a separate thread for Mobile Firefox 4 though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: not new
by Carewolf on Mon 24th Jan 2011 14:00 in reply to "RE[2]: not new"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

There are no major web-browser capable of using more than one thread per web-page. The best you can do is start multiple browser processes and sometimes embed this processes into the same application, but this is similar to just starting multiple browsers and multiple applications in general.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: not new
by kokara4a on Mon 24th Jan 2011 14:33 in reply to "RE[3]: not new"
kokara4a Member since:
2005-09-16

There are no major web-browser capable of using more than one thread per web-page.


Sure! But with Firefox, the UI doesn't seem to be in a thread of its own. And this really spoils the experience.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: not new
by Earl C Pottinger on Mon 24th Jan 2011 15:23 in reply to "RE[3]: not new"
Earl C Pottinger Member since:
2008-07-12

I did notice that you used the word "Major", but since WebPostive runs under Haiku-OS I believe it is required to use two or more threads per web-page.

On other systems, what Web-Browsers use more than one thread per web-page? Has anyone had experience with them? With a fast pipe do they run faster? Asking as I don't know the real gains to be seen.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: not new
by Fergy on Tue 25th Jan 2011 09:30 in reply to "RE[2]: not new"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

any modern game these days also runs in several threads.

In my experience most games use 1.25 cores. Some games go all out and use 2.00 cores. But that is still only using 50% of my quad core.

I still don't get why they can't put a full core at work for the physics and a full core at work for 3d sound.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: not new
by viton on Tue 25th Jan 2011 11:24 in reply to "RE[3]: not new"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

I still don't get why they can't put a full core at work for the physics and a full core at work for 3d sound.

It is only use as much as required. At one point the game use more cpu time, at other point - much less.

If you throw specific cores to specific task - as naive programmers do, you end up with highly asymmetrical load on different cores.
Multicore programming in games/consumer software is not hard. Just split your data to chunks and feed it to asynchronous data-parallel job-system effectively utilizing all the cores. It will be effecient if you can break/relax time dependencies and manage input/output streams right. That means synchronous is bad. Async is good.

With big enough dataset you can utilize 10 or 100 cores without any work from the coding side.
Even simple jpeg image can be decoded with a set of tiny jobs providing a real speedup. Glyph rendering system could process different symbols on multiple cores, etc

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: not new
by Kivada on Tue 25th Jan 2011 14:28 in reply to "RE[3]: not new"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Most people are going to hit the limitations of their GPU before the limitations of the CPU. To make the CPU a limiting factor in say an FPS game you'd take a GTX580 and run the game at minimum settings at 1024x768, you'd get hundreds of frames per second of low quality graphics, which are ultimately useless since your LCD can only output at 60 fps.

Reply Parent Score: 1