If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 5:42:03 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:
In some cases, this ability to adjust things is important, for example, when the OS gets the metrics for running programs all wrong. There is currently a situation where an 8C 16T Ryzen CPU is being viewed as a 16C processor. Performance suffers, because too many threads are launched. A means is needed to intervene, and you could, for example, use the Affinity tick boxes to change the behavior slightly. Notice that the AMD rep ("evangelist"), just "blows off" this issue. Not just Ryzen problem. Intel compilers have an "auto-parallize" option. It doesn't find code that it can split up that often, but when it does, it spawns 8 threads on an i7, thinking hyperthreading is actual cores. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
John Doe wrote:
"Yes" wrote: Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there consumer software now that actually uses the multi-core CPU technology? I mean, all the additional cores sounds nice, but has any consumer s/w caught up with the hardware? Your premise is invalid. In addition to a jillion Windows background processes, users almost always have many of their own programs going at the same time. We are never talking about just one program, let alone a single thread. Obviously you are concerned with processing power, so the question is whether you want few faster cores or many slower cores. You need to specify the applications in order to receive a valid answer. I think the best answer is found by asking people who use the applications you plan to use. I have not bothered looking to see whether my modern quad core eight thread CPU is filling up all cores and virtual threads, because I have no doubt it is efficiently using all of them. Multicore CPUs have been around for decades. Windows and the CPU itself, not an individual program, controls the use of cores. Quit putting words into my mouth and twisting them to suit your preconceptions! Your reply is antagonistic. I asked, as a lteral question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take advantage of all the cores that hardware provides. At one time, the idea of multi-core CPUs was news, and the buzz from that time was that the multi-core CPUs were an answer for a question that had not been asked. It was NEW, and s/w till then had been designed for use in a single core environment. At that time, it was projected that programs video editing and games would be the quickest to adapt to the then new technology. It's been several years now since I last followed where s/w has gone keeping up with the hardware (the multi-core CPU tech), so I was curious. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm fortunate in that I don't 'have to' upgrade or buy new s/w on any frequent basis nor to upgrade/replace my hardware. When I do, however, it's useful to be aware of such things. John Howland |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC), "Yes"
wrote: I asked, as a lteral question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take advantage of all the cores that hardware provides. The literal answer, at least among programming circles, is that writing predictive analysis and branching logic for structural deployment across core arrays, is literally one of the most difficult endeavors in a universe of programming. It's not only as much a matter of practically encompassing technological advancements, but a bent, logically, for wrapping "one's ears" around a wider-than-round course given to present trends. Once upon a time we know we were the one. Then the one ran smack into a brick wall called 4GHz. Molecular resistance or physics in the electron pathways, which no doubt gets them and steals the show every time. A consortium of the world's leading scientists was then proposed. After much deliberation over a matter assayed in demographic marketing stratagems -- "go wide" emerged to surface as the final solution. As many possible logical processing units in a parallel construct were then issued to counter the brick speed wall. And that is how the blueprint for your basic supercomputer emerged. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
The idea that ordinary software determines the cores it runs
on is just silly. A program cannot "take advantage of all the cores that hardware provides" since ordinarily it has no idea how many cores that is. Intel still produces single core CPUs. However, the obvious related question can be answered, as described in my first reply. -- "Yes" noone invalid.invalid.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Yes" noone invalid.invalid.com Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Subject: Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs? Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: oiok42$g1c$1 dont-email.me References: oiknup$t2c$1 dont-email.me oim24i$ff0$1 dont-email.me Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a32cebe2271320dfe95ffe97b5eb8011"; logging-data="16428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aW2w+BMIQb3orFPNsfxRgHd9i3qLh3 2w=" User-Agent: XanaNews/1.19.1.320 Cancel-Lock: sha1McR442KrI+njI4dXTEWcahhM8E= Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:36247 John Doe wrote: "Yes" noone invalid.invalid.com wrote: Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there consumer software now that actually uses the multi-core CPU technology? I mean, all the additional cores sounds nice, but has any consumer s/w caught up with the hardware? Your premise is invalid. In addition to a jillion Windows background processes, users almost always have many of their own programs going at the same time. We are never talking about just one program, let alone a single thread. Obviously you are concerned with processing power, so the question is whether you want few faster cores or many slower cores. You need to specify the applications in order to receive a valid answer. I think the best answer is found by asking people who use the applications you plan to use. I have not bothered looking to see whether my modern quad core eight thread CPU is filling up all cores and virtual threads, because I have no doubt it is efficiently using all of them. Multicore CPUs have been around for decades. Windows and the CPU itself, not an individual program, controls the use of cores. Quit putting words into my mouth and twisting them to suit your preconceptions! Your reply is antagonistic. I asked, as a lteral question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take advantage of all the cores that hardware provides. At one time, the idea of multi-core CPUs was news, and the buzz from that time was that the multi-core CPUs were an answer for a question that had not been asked. It was NEW, and s/w till then had been designed for use in a single core environment. At that time, it was projected that programs video editing and games would be the quickest to adapt to the then new technology. It's been several years now since I last followed where s/w has gone keeping up with the hardware (the multi-core CPU tech), so I was curious. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm fortunate in that I don't 'have to' upgrade or buy new s/w on any frequent basis nor to upgrade/replace my hardware. When I do, however, it's useful to be aware of such things. John Howland |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
Flasherly wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC), "Yes" wrote: I asked, as a lteral question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take advantage of all the cores that hardware provides. The literal answer, at least among programming circles, is that writing predictive analysis and branching logic for structural deployment across core arrays, is literally one of the most difficult endeavors in a universe of programming. It's not only as much a matter of practically encompassing technological advancements, but a bent, logically, for wrapping "one's ears" around a wider-than-round course given to present trends. When I was in school we learned that 10% of the code takes 90% of the execution time. Obviously, that small part is what you want to speed up. Algorithmic techniques such as sorting seem a natural place to try to parallelize. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:12:59 -0400, Bill
wrote: When I was in school we learned that 10% of the code takes 90% of the execution time. Obviously, that small part is what you want to speed up. Algorithmic techniques such as sorting seem a natural place to try to parallelize. I got as far as Emory University sophomore course for designing chipsets. A nice and meaty course book I found in the Salvation Army, which I thought interesting material. I've also read something similar, more so if I borrow your figures and make the transposition -- that 90% of code-work already exists in modulated form, that programmers borrow and plug in the modules where necessary. The algorithmic technique is likely to be found in a programmer's grade computer, well-built for comprising virtual machines capable of algorithmic representation of all stages -- first the code itself, followed by compilation and debugging layer, for final and last stage, monitoring execution while to tweaking in code for the desired result;- Some may exist, in the final stage, capable of virtualizing more than one operating system displayed simultaneously, for program portability. When they then turn around to say their program is unique for being faster than another similar or existing class of program, it's often touted for being a derivable of assembly language or minimalist handling of key modules from (without or less efficacy being introduced by) the compiler stage. I once watched a contractual bid take place. A pair of out-of-state programmers come in to setup an inhouse telemetry monitoring station compiled for Microsoft's spreadsheet on an NT workstation. Two guys, probably come in on a Chevy 6 by the looks of them, for no telling how few multiples of a hundred-thousand-dollars that might entail. I had worked there from ground zero, which otherwise means a long matriculation period, for a relatively stable environment, or a perfunctory if appreciable sense of what the salaried jay-O-bee means. IOW, I did all my stock trading after working all night when moonlighting as a day trader. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 12:00:57 AM UTC-4, Yes wrote:
Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there consumer software now that actually uses the multi-core CPU technology? I mean, all the additional cores sounds nice, but has any consumer s/w caught up with the hardware? TIA, John Howland I tried my hand at C# multithreading and it's harder than it looks. Interesting that one 'sample' was for graphics, where the pixels of each picture are independent of the others. One game that does multi-threading (multi-core) is computer chess playing. But as Paul says, the applications are thin. I think a bigger benefit of multi-cores is that you can run several apps simultaneously. I just wish that Intel/AMD would have a "master core" so that when the internet incoming data stream freezes, as often happens, your entire CPU does not lock up for a few seconds or sometimes half a minute, as often happens on my Windows 10, core 2 duo with a SSD drive. Annoying. There should be an OS manager kernel or something that makes this impossible or less probable. RL |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 1:30:51 AM UTC+8, RayLopez99 wrote:
I think a bigger benefit of multi-cores is that you can run several apps simultaneously. I just wish that Intel/AMD would have a "master core" so that when the internet incoming data stream freezes, as often happens, your entire CPU does not lock up for a few seconds or sometimes half a minute, as often happens on my Windows 10, core 2 duo with a SSD drive. Annoying. There should be an OS manager kernel or something that makes this impossible or less probable. I would like to see CPU made with a "boss core" for MPI (well at least when you have more than 8 cores.) The boss core is doing different stuff to the other worker cores, and so has different optimisation. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
RayLopez99 wrote:
Yes wrote: Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there consumer software now that actually uses the multi-core CPU technology? I mean, all the additional cores sounds nice, but has any consumer s/w caught up with the hardware? One game that does multi-threading (multi-core) is computer chess playing. There are plenty of others. But as Paul says, the applications are thin. True or not, that would be irrelevant to the benefit of multicore CPUs. In fact, modern PCs usually have hundreds of processes and thousands of threads running at the same time. What part of that is difficult understand? I think a bigger benefit of multi-cores is that you can run several apps simultaneously. Yeah, or hundreds of processes and thousands of threads like with a typical modern PC. You are supposed to be a programmer? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dual Core - 2 CPUs? | [email protected] | General | 3 | September 3rd 13 01:03 AM |
Best Multi-chip multi-core mobo question | Mike[_7_] | General | 4 | May 14th 07 08:11 AM |
Is Core 2 Duo always faster than non-Core 2 Duo CPUs? | jmDesktop | Dell Computers | 14 | February 7th 07 07:47 PM |
Are dual core CPUs worth it? | Random Person | General | 20 | September 2nd 05 09:10 PM |
AMD's 90nm 1-core CPUs: who's on first? | Felger Carbon | General | 4 | May 6th 05 05:34 PM |