A Brief History of the Multi-Core Desktop CPU

R00sT3R

Posts: 616   +1,804
Perhaps someone could forward this article to Ubisoft and ask them to make games that utilise modern multi-core CPU's efficiently, instead of still trying to find a single core, running at 10Ghz, In order to get decent performance in their appallingly CPU bound game engines.


 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,310   +2,316
Intel - HT Hyperthreading
AMD - SMT Simultaneous Multithreading

You said there was a potential 32 core Zen 4 desktop part coming with a link to Epyc chips. I don't see a core bump coming to desktop parts.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,310   +2,316
Perhaps someone could forward this article to Ubisoft and ask them to make games that utilise modern multi-core CPU's efficiently, instead of still trying to find a single core, running at 10Ghz, In order to get decent performance in their appallingly CPU bound game engines.
That could be caused by a number of things.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,071   +1,642
Is this a joke?: "The culmination of all these efforts resulted in what is regarded as one of the best single-core desktop CPUs of all time, the Intel Pentium IV processor with a clock frequency of up to 3.8GHz supporting 2 threads.“

Pentium 4 was smashed by Athlon if my memory serves me well. But I remember very well the bad comments about Pentium 4 at that time.
 
Not only core count is important, but also the architecture of the system. Switching from a Q9550 to an i5 2500k brought me tremendous improvements at the time even though both had 4 cores and used DDR3 memory. The Pentium IV versus Athlon Thunderbird confrontation also showed that working frequency was not the most determinant aspect.

I think this article could have briefly referred the primordial days of multicore computing, when it was only possible through gimmicks like dual socket pentium pro motherboards, for instance.
 

veLa

Posts: 1,157   +815
Is this a joke?: "The culmination of all these efforts resulted in what is regarded as one of the best single-core desktop CPUs of all time, the Intel Pentium IV processor with a clock frequency of up to 3.8GHz supporting 2 threads.“

Pentium 4 was smashed by Athlon if my memory serves me well. But I remember very well the bad comments about Pentium 4 at that time.

Not only did the 32-bit Barton-based Athlon XP series put up a good fight, but the Athlon 64 series showed up and mopped the floor with them.

Intel's Prescott-based Pentium 4 ran so hot they practically melted systems.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,334   +4,971
I can't wait for people in the future to look at the quantum computers of today in the same way we look at the vacuum tube computers of years long passed
 

Gameredic

Posts: 22   +9
"the average PC user was not as tech-informed as it is today"
the average pc user today has no idea at all
Definitely. You needed a lot more technical knowledge to install operating systems and just using them in general.

Now it is much easier as computers have become mainstream.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,727   +4,100
I remember early 2000s my first PC had Athlon64 3000+ and around that time dual-core CPUs became a thing. It was like today buying a 11900K only for 12900K to release the next day that is much better in every way.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,071   +1,642
Definitely. You needed a lot more technical knowledge to install operating systems and just using them in general.

Now it is much easier as computers have become mainstream.
My wife still can't update even a driver. I have to do it all for her. She uses a computer like an appliance. Her computer still works every day because I'm here. Shameful.
 

Danny101

Posts: 2,026   +838
I can't wait for people in the future to look at the quantum computers of today in the same way we look at the vacuum tube computers of years long passed
My prediction: Photon computers will smash quantum computers into the ether.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,334   +4,971
My prediction: Photon computers will smash quantum computers into the ether.
They're very different technologies. Something like a quantum computer can't play games but they are very good at the problems they can solve. Photonics are more along the lines of something you'd see in a traditional desktop.
 

dad0ts

Posts: 37   +18
Going from single-core to multi-core CPU in general you should always remember Amdahl's Law: the more cores the harder is to scale the software, and some tasks are impossible to scale beyond the fixed number of cores. With more GHz(or higher IPC) it's always much easier: you don't have to re-write the software to improve on each new CPU. Even now in 2022 most desktop (non-server) software hits upper core/thread limit very soon, not scales above 8-12 cores/16-20 threads. So 32-core desktop CPU seems not useful in the near future (3-5 years). And single core IPC/GHz progress is very limited during the last 10 years: even 12gen P-core(Alder Lake @ 5-5.2 GHz) is hardly 2-3 times faster than 10-year old Sandy Bridge core @ 4-4.5 GHz. New instructions like AVX2, AVX512 sometimes help, but again if you already have some old code without 'em, you have to change it (or at least re-compile)...
 
Just before multi core CPUs showed up, motherboards with more than one CPU slots were available. I remember running a dual Celeron system with Windows NT sometime around the turn of the century.
 

Faelan

Posts: 140   +145
I have fond memories of my Core 2 Duo Conroe CPU. Overclocked like a champ and required about 2 brain cells to figure out how to OC. First and only time I OCed a CPU by over 1 GHz.

These days I'm happy if I can squeeze out another couple hundred MHz. I haven't had much luck in the chip lottery since that Conroe and since I need max single core performance... well... sucks to be me, because max single core performance seems to be reserved for those high core count SKUs, so I either live with not having the max performance that I desire or pay the upselling premium and waste a ton of cores. An Alder Lake SKU (as an example) with 6 P-cores boosting to 5.4GHz and an all core of 5.1-5.2GHz would be a way better match for my needs than the 12900K in my new system. But...eh... guess Intel got the memo that I'm a milkable whale, so I can't blame them, you know?

 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 188   +277
Although hardware has come on by leaps and bounds, the software that runs on them has stagnated...thus crippling the performance that could be there. I'm talking about the operating systems. This is the direct result of the MS monopoly. We are still wedded to a 30yr old, insecure and unstable, error strewn mess. Surely mankind can come up with something better?
 

Vanderlinde

Posts: 117   +81
"The culmination of all these efforts resulted in what is regarded as one of the best single-core desktop CPUs of all time, the Intel Pentium IV processor with a clock frequency of up to 3.8GHz supporting 2 threads.“

So wrong. Perhaps re-read the FX57 of AMD. At 2.6 to 2.8Ghz it swepped the whole Intel 3.8GHz P4 with the table. Fastest consumer / gamer processor there was back then.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,484   +6,275
My first foray into "multi-core" desktops was a dual socket slot 1 motherboard. I don't remember the procs I used, except they were Intel procs. The power connectors were the old style power connectors and eventually burned up on me. I then got rid of the connectors and hard-soldered the PS wires to the power connector. That was ages ago. I still have a dual core Opteron 1220 system, but I have not turned it on in over a year at least. It's got XP on it, and the last time I turned it on, it booted faster than any of my current 4+ core Windohs 10 PCs. :rolleyes:
 

Danny101

Posts: 2,026   +838
My first foray into "multi-core" desktops was a dual socket slot 1 motherboard. I don't remember the procs I used, except they were Intel procs. The power connectors were the old style power connectors and eventually burned up on me. I then got rid of the connectors and hard-soldered the PS wires to the power connector. That was ages ago. I still have a dual core Opteron 1220 system, but I have not turned it on in over a year at least. It's got XP on it, and the last time I turned it on, it booted faster than any of my current 4+ core Windohs 10 PCs. :rolleyes:
The bigger the hardware warehouse is, the more software is created to fill it. Why the internet, for example, doesn't seem any faster.