[Retsof]

I have been browsing for a new comp recently, as my three year old laptop is beginning to get cranky.  But I have to wonder, with six and even eight core processors around, what's the point?  Especially when many of the games I play don't support multi-threading.  Why not just have one big processor instead of so many little ones?

[zookeeper]

Well, I presume the point is for most part that it's a lot cheaper and easier to make, say, 4 cores than it would be to make a single core that's four times as fast. I doubt the technology exists to make a 24Ghz CPU at a non-ludicrous price, but something like an 8-core 3Ghz CPU is clearly doable.

Besides that, I don't really know whether there's tangible benefits to be had from a multi-core architecture or not. Probably some, but notable ones as far as most people are concerned? I have no idea. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will drop by and explain.

[Davros]

Because they hit a wall, they got to the point where they couldnt increase the clockspeed any more because of heat and power issues
intel claimed they would have a pentium 4 running at 10ghz before long they couldnt get it past 3.8ghz and the whole netburst architecture was scrapped
and while you may not be running many multithreaded games this will change over time
try running gta 4 on a single core (its horrible) its not even great on a dual core

ps: as you appear to be someone who doesnt replace their pc too often you should be looking at at least a quadcore preferably even more for the sake of longevity
and if buying a laptop for gods sake steer clear of intel graphics

[The E]

Because, as Intel found out with the P4, single-core designs do not scale well. You can increase the core clock as much as you want, but only at a cost of increased energy usage and heat wastage.

In the end, multicore processors are the way of the future, because they allow computers to run more tasks concurrently without slowing down.

Also, consider that recent designs are just as good in terms of single-thread power as the latest and greatest of the single-core generation, there's just no good reason to return to single-threaded designs (Except of usage scenarios where power is scarce, and processing power not that necessary, like mobile phones. Or toasters.)

[Flipside]

As I understand it, the latest generations of processors don't need software that is written with specific multi-threading in mind anyway, they can, to a limited extent, share jobs between cores automatically. Obviously, writing things to specifically make use of multi-core would be more efficient, but not doing so doesn't limit them to the speed of a single core.

[The E]

One thing that modern Intel chips do, for example, is to selectively increase a core's clock if it is used by a single process.

[666maslo666]

I doubt its beneficial to buy more than quad core - certainly not at the cost of frequency. I would advise you to rather buy faster quad core than slower six core or even more slower eight core for the same amount of money.

[Kolgena]

Also keep in mind that performance per hertz varies depending on how new/good the architecture of the chip is. A single core on a 2.2 GHz on the newest generation of i3/5/7 chips is faster than the equivalent number on a Core 2 or a Pentium. This is due to newer instruction sets and stuff. Therefore, you want a newer chip over an older chip even if its apparent clocks seem slightly lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

[newman]

Even if a game or app doesn't support multithreading, your operating system does. Meaning it can assign one core for system processes, another for some app you're running, etc. And if you ever get into 3d and try to render something, you'll soon learn to appreciate multithreading..

[Polpolion]

A processor core can only do one computation at a time. If you're multi-tasking on a single core processor it's just running for a tiny bit on one process and then moving onto the next, and so on and so forth. With a multi-core or hyper-threaded processor, you can do much better than just having one processor even if individually your cores are much less powerful.

[Nuke]

if you really want to know why to go with a multi-core processor, open the task manager's process tab (or equivalent) on a modern os and look how much crap the system runs in the background, even when youre not actually running any software other than the os. granted most of these sit idle most of the time but sometimes they need to eat up cycles up to do something. also i think multicore processors are better at handling interrupts, so the whole chip doesnt have to go off task to handle a service routine, just a core.

another thing is that most of a modern gpu die space is taken up by cache (sram, which is big and fast), with the actual cpu only taking up a small fraction of the space. considering how little die space the cpu takes up, its just as easy to put 4 of them in there and next to the cache it still looks tiny.

[IceFire]

I think in 2011 it's a misconception to believe that few games support multiple cores. Some games now demand it. Mind you it's the top of the line stuff but IL-2 Cliffs of Dover isn't really playable (mind you it has other problems) until you get into a quad core. The latest Crysis suggests it. Battlefield 3 will probably require at least dual but probably quad is recommended.

[Kosh]

In a way it's sort of going back to the late 80's when it was believed major problems with processor design and fabrication techniques of the era couldn't be solved any other way. Although this time around it these problems really aren't surmountable.

[Mongoose]

I think in 2011 it's a misconception to believe that few games support multiple cores. Some games now demand it.

Yeah, there are a few games that I've had half an idea of playing that I can't run on my system, because they require at least a Core 2 Duo and I'm still on a P4 box.  It doesn't bug me all that much, since I'm kind of amazed at the mileage I've managed to get out of a 7-year-old Dell, but it's fun to think that it's the processor that represents the final hard limit for it.

[Davros]

I doubt its beneficial to buy more than quad core - certainly not at the cost of frequency. I would advise you to rather buy faster quad core than slower six core or even more slower eight core for the same amount of money.

I had that same dilemma (and at the time most games were single core only)
go for a quad or a higher clocked core 2 duo and going for the quad was the right decision
I think going 6/8 core is the way to go especially if your going to be stuck with the system for a number of years

@mongoose isnt your p4 hyperthreaded ?

[S-99]

I'm kind of amazed at the mileage I've managed to get out of a 7-year-old Dell, but it's fun to think that it's the processor that represents the final hard limit for it.

The p4 was a great processor and still is. There's plenty of modern day things you can do on a p4 based computer. My favorite was the hyperthreaded p4. That turned hd television from the air waves  from choppy to smooth (that was one hell of a performance increase for what otherwise tricks the computer into thinking a single core is two, not to mention that a p4 can handle hd tv (i turned a computer into a dvr)). It's my opinion that intel went wild and crazy with this processor. There are so many different variants of the p4 it's ridiculous. Still a great processor. Not bad to be stuck with. Beats being with a p3 or lower.

Might be worth seeing what the best p4 you can get for your system is and get it. It wouldn't exactly be expensive.

[Nuke]

In a way it's sort of going back to the late 80's when it was believed major problems with processor design and fabrication techniques of the era couldn't be solved any other way. Although this time around it these problems really aren't surmountable.

the problem is primarily power and cooling. ive heard of overclockers going to 5ghz with water cooling, and some much more expensive overclocks to as high as 25ghz in laboratory test rigs at the intel plant. problem is these things need to be kept very cold and require expensive refrigeration systems to prevent the cpu from auto-detonating. you can overclock a ghz or two over the factory spec with air cooling, provided you dont mind that your computer sounds like a jet engine. its like buying a ferrari instead of a mustang, how much do you want to spend? its not unforeseeable that someone comes up with a breakthrough in cooling technology that is both effective and cheap, then we might see machines in the 4-10 ghz range. until that happens, get a quad core.

[Flipside]

I think if anyone ever comes up with inter-circuit cooling, that is actually threaded onto the chip itself, using ceramics or something to quickly pull heat away from the IC etching, then you might see much higher possibilities for ramping up the GHertz ratings, but as far as I'm aware, we are a long way from that kind of technology.

Edit : The other possibility is optic-based computers, which are becoming more feasible and produce only a fraction of the heat.

[666maslo666]

Graphene transistors based chips will be capable of more than 100 Ghz speeds. This is what I am looking forward to.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/computer-hardware/ibm-shows-smallest-fastest-graphene-processor-228?page=0,0

[Admiral LSD]

The p4 was a great processor and still is. There's plenty of modern day things you can do on a p4 based computer. My favorite was the hyperthreaded p4. That turned hd television from the air waves  from choppy to smooth (that was one hell of a performance increase for what otherwise tricks the computer into thinking a single core is two, not to mention that a p4 can handle hd tv (i turned a computer into a dvr)). It's my opinion that intel went wild and crazy with this processor. There are so many different variants of the p4 it's ridiculous. Still a great processor. Not bad to be stuck with. Beats being with a p3 or lower.

Might be worth seeing what the best p4 you can get for your system is and get it. It wouldn't exactly be expensive.

I don't know where you were or what you were smoking during the P4 era, but the P4 was far from a "great" processor. Early models were slower per clock than P3s(!) and Athlon 64s were consistently faster, cheaper and cooler than the later ones. Some models of P4 stood out more than others though, the Northwoods, in particular the ones with the 800FSB and HT, but overall you were generally better off with an AMD system. How times have changed...

Getting back to multicore, you see far more in the way of immediately perceptible benefits moving from one core to two than from two to four or more. The ability of your OS to move programs/threads around only goes so far, eventually you need multithreaded software to make effective use of your additional cores. As mentioned previously, you used to have to chose the number of cores based on your workload as the more cores you had, the slower they were clocked, but technologies like turbo boost make this moot as a single CPU can adjust it's clock speed/core count based on the workload. One minute it can be a quad core with a slight bit of boost on tap and the next it can be a single core clocked 50% higher than the base clock all in the same thermal envelope. Another reason to not get too fixated on core count is AMDs 6, 8 and 12 core processors tend to actually be slower at various tasks (mostly single- or lightly threaded workloads, but Sandy Bridge raises the bar on multithreaded performance too) than even dual cores from Intel while using more power and costing more money.