Multicore Processors

D

Decadent_Spectre

Adept
What is the point of multicore processors for the average user (recreational), please no generic answers like video editing/rendering/virtual macine etc. These cases are true but not the average user. Most users browse/game/video/music and supporting/similar programs like torrent or unzip, some light text/photo editor. Please post specific programs if possible.
 
Anything lower than a 4C/8T CPU is weak by today's standards even for normal web browsing, multimedia, etc. See with faster CPUs coming out year 2 years, websites are becoming heavier as well. 8GB RAM is also the minimum you need along with OS on SSD these days. Since people will use their PC for at least a few years, 4C/8T CPU like i3 12100 on desktop or R3 5300U for laptops is what I recommend at least (I know the latter is weaker than the former).

For gaming, you can get by i3 12100, but R5 5600/i5 12400F is ideally my minimum recommendation. For laptops, R5 5600H.
 
Incentive for manufacturers is simply that using multiple cores is one among many techniques to improve performance, or at least show the potential with softwares that make use of all those cores. This enables them to sell and keep doing so.

Incentive for customers is that as manufactures keep doing this, software gets developed with all this in mind; be it number of cores, number of P & E cores, etc. So, customers face a bare minimum requirement from the developers of the software; be it apps, games or even OS, etc.

So, it's not that basic browsing isn't possible on a single core CPU; it's that no one develops a browser that could do that, as it is not widely used.
 
The point is how much use are the multiple cores available today, yes it helps with multiple programs running and yes software can be designed for it and of course manufacturers need something to sell, but actually how useful are they? How many programs does the average user use that actually utilize the cores? I suppose someone might see some benefit if they have a few tabs open while they are running a torrent client and playing a game but that might be okay with 4 cores. What programs are being used by the average user that makes use of multiple cores?
 
n1r0 said:
Open Task Manager > Performance tab > Open Resource Monitor > CPU tab > sort by threads
Click to expand...

I have done this before, just did it again, I don't know about others but most entries are system entries, or chrome. I've been meaning to ask, why do they list so many hundreds, even thousands of threads when CPUs have far fewer threads?
 
Decadent_Spectre said:
Please do list a few programs used by the average user that make use of multiple cores.
Click to expand...
1697602222809.png

Just took a screenshot on my mac. look at #threads column.
Decadent_Spectre said:
I've been meaning to ask, why do they list so many hundreds, even thousands of threads when CPUs have far fewer threads?
Click to expand...
we have to get into concepts like scheduler etc... you have to get into OS system design to fully understand those concepts.
 
Decadent_Spectre said:
I've been meaning to ask, why do they list so many hundreds, even thousands of threads when CPUs have far fewer threads?
Click to expand...
Basically those are two different things that share a common name. Those are software or app threads in your tasks list; ones in your CPU spec sheet is the number of physical hardware or native threads. One physical thread can host multiple software threads depending on the OS, RAM, etc., operating on different tasks. Such tasks aren't carried out strictly simultaneously, as it is the case with physical threads. For more on this, look up 'time slicing' or 'CPU scheduling'.
 
There are 3 peaks on my CPU graph, which goes upto 50%. The first peak is me opening Firefox (has 10+ tabs), 2nd & 3rd are me opening YT. Other websites like TE forum aren't that heavy. So my minimum recommendation of a 4C CPU for few coming years are good. For normal usage on web browser, my CPU remains at 5-10%. I know Task Manager gives a rough estimate, but still, a rough one is good enough.

At my parent's place, I have an old i3 530 desktop with 6GB RAM & OS on a BX500 SSD. Playing a YT 1080p video results in it being at 80-90% usage on Chrome (that's a very old 2C/4T CPU & current 2C/4T ones should be faster). Unless you have a single core CPU with same performance as single core of R9 7950X, I doubt, you can have a web browser with multiple tabs open with a video playing smoothly. Hence my recommendation for 4C/8T CPU.

1697603125872.png
 
Decadent_Spectre said:
I have done this before, just did it again, I don't know about others but most entries are system entries, or chrome. I've been meaning to ask, why do they list so many hundreds, even thousands of threads when CPUs have far fewer threads?
Click to expand...
You remember the math problems from school where if it takes one guy 10 hours to paint a wall, how long will it take 5 guys to do the same work?
 
I would say even if a tiny program required only a single core, the devs ensured it needlessly utilize more cores and then this 64bit thing consumes more.
I have been working right form 8bit 16bit era and last checked on few such programs, only the interface has changed or pumped-up but not much from functional pov, yet they consume 2-3cores and memory when they were easily running fine on 32mb ram back then.
Of course, not comparing a win98, xp and 10 here but may be the libraries etc. forced everything as a trend to consume.

Its like you got ambani then why not splurge on every penny...:p
 
Fenix said:
So are you against multi core CPU?
Click to expand...
I'm against nothing. My sole point was, if a basic user requires a bare minimum hardware for his requirement yet he has to spend more just because that/those specific applications now utilize 4 core or so where the same programs older version performs very well on a dual or single core on a older os.
 
nRiTeCh said:
I'm against nothing. My sole point was, if a basic user requires a bare minimum hardware for his requirement yet he has to spend more just because that/those specific applications now utilize 4 core or so where the same programs older version performs very well on a dual or single core on a older os.
Click to expand...
My bad brother, it was not for you but for the OP.
 
The thing is, adding more cores to a processor is a much easier way to gain performance than making a single core perform better.

And in the modern day and age even something simple as browsing a web page requires a decent bit of horsepower compared to say, 15 years ago because of how much more data and functionality is contained now. Add to this how much heavier operating systems have gotten and a single core or even a dual core just isn't enough for a decent user experience. It will work, yes, but it will also lag and hang providing overall a frustrating experience.

Now coming to games, same principle applies. Modern game engines require so much more processing power than before that a dual core is inadequate and even a quad core is going to struggle in some titles now.
 
enthusiast29 said:
Please do some research.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that @Decadent_Spectre's computing history/experience puts them far above in the one-percenters. They had HEDT before HEDT was even a thing:

I call it "Mammoth"...

My new rig...well not assembled yet, probly wont be assembled for a while as I am going out of town for a month or two soon. I bought the various parts over the period of 7 months...Starting in Jan 2007.And don't ask me what I spent on this stuff.... CPU----------QX6700 Mobo---------Asus...
techenclave.com techenclave.com

Decadent_Spectre said:
What is the point of multicore processors for the average user (recreational), please no generic answers like video editing/rendering/virtual macine etc.
Click to expand...

At this point in computing, the operating system expects to see multicore processors to better schedule processes.

For apps, browsers in particular are doing a lot of background processing and rendering and with computational imagery (svgs) and new image formats that require more cpus cycles for decoding (avix, webp).

Web streaming (YouTube) is probably the most cpu intensive task a regular user would do on a regular basis and a single core computer would make it unwatchable because of the frames dropped.

The web has been the largest driving force for more computing power in recent years, web sites want users to interact more and visit more frequently to increase their ad revenue and this translates to more animations, more videos, more rich content.

There are browsers that can cut out all of extra media and present bare text or render a webpage as an image server-side but that doesn't represent the expectations of a regular user — regular users want the flashy animations and detailed photos and highres videos.

There are similar parallels in other aspects of a regular person's life, like how bhendi-phulka is forgotten in the age of paratha-paneer. People overall expect and want experiences that are rich, enjoyable, rewarding and pleasing.
 
Back
Top