Quad-Core May Be Overkill

Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:10PM EST

See Comments (6)

In the old days (and by that I mean 2002 or so), we got better performance out of our PCs by simply upping the clock speed of the CPU, with regular architectural updates to add more features to the chip itself.

It wasn't until dual-core came along that things started to change. Today's approach to boosting computer performance is to divide and conquer: Provide two or more "cores," the guts of a microchip, to split a task in two and get the job done without the excess heat and power consumption that comes with skyrocketing CPU speeds.

Of course, there's a bit of a problem with this: Software. Applications haven't really been optimized for multi-core computing, and while some programs excel at the divide-and-conquer approach (depending on how they were written to take advantage of the hyperthreading features of the prior generation of chips), many applications do not. Multi-core chips are a boon to heavily CPU intensive tasks like rendering 3D images or creating video effects, but don't expect Word to spell-check your memo twice as fast just because you have a dual-core PC. Still, the benefits of dual core really do outweigh these drawbacks (particularly in the way they handle multiple applications running at once), and since the price is right I recommend dual-core CPUs for virtually all new computer buyers.

But now there's a new wrinkle, as quad-core arrives next month. If you think your software didn't know what to do with two CPUs just wait until it has four to deal with. Nathan Davis offers some intelligent ranting on why quad-core CPUs are not going to give you much of a performance boost in the real world. Sure, benchmarks look good, but what's the upshot for a day-to-day computer user? Probably nothing except a big fat bill to pay for the latest generation of CPUs.

What's the upshot? By the time software is ready to take advantage of four cores, we'll probably be running eight-core chips. For 99 percent of you, dual core is going to be perfect for the foreseeable future. Give Davis's argument a read for more detail.

Comments on Quad-Core May Be Overkill

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by victorvpad on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:34PM EDT Report Abuse

    Personally, I think that quad cores may be just perfect. bt as Chris Null wrote in his last post on Quad cores, this processor will be brand new for about 1-2 years from now. So maybe by then most applications will be accostomed to dual core or quado core processors

  • 2 Posted by plsqldba on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:14PM EDT Report Abuse

    The author Davis admits he has yet to try a quad core ... maybe he should test one first and post some real results.

  • 3 Posted by ejaz4540 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:52PM EDT Report Abuse

    I disagree with the author. Most of you may have remember this that when Pentium 4 came out lot of people said that we wouldn't be needing another faster processor in the next 5 years but after year or two, developers have created such powerful software(s) that P4 was just not enough. I think in one year time, we will be looking out for yet another upgrade because of advance 3D rendering operating system and its products i.e. the new Microsoft Vista. Just a thought!

  • 4 Posted by diaoboix on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    I totally agree with ejaz4540. Everything will change in time to come. There will be many more newer processors. All of them using more and more cores.

  • 5 Posted by somebodys_here on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:32PM EDT Report Abuse

    aggreed, there already is a 8-core processor on the market, granted its fixed inside a Playstation 3. but in five years that will be out of date too. so whatever get the quadro if you want to spend $1000 (or more) on a CPU. but think then dual core CPUs will be a lot cheaper.

  • 6 Posted by wing_zero_ver1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    Its just come to that time where technolog is exponentially getting more advanced. I expected nothing less. Neccesity isn't the mother of invention for technology, its just te drive to invent and improve, neccesity comes after, when everybody figures out how to harness its full potential.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment