Worth Reading?
+4 [12 votes]
Is it just me or is it a growing trend these days for more and more of the excitable and highly marketable to be using low end, often times single-core, processors of the past? Why did Intel and AMD even bother developing dual and quad core chips when we were going to wind up going back to single core chips, and even VIA processors?
I have no problem with this trend as they are extremely energy efficient, but why is the industry on whole accepting this technological retardation? Just think about it, there are tons of new budget PCs being released that are all using low voltage, low clock speed, single core processors, their processes and power requirements have just been shrunken from the days of yore.
However even in higher end devices its becoming common practice to use the slower, single core chips. Just today I wrote an article about a notebook being sold in the UK that was designed to compete with the X300 and MacBook Air but yet its running an 800MHz single core processor and selling for roughly $2000. UMPCs not of the Eee variant are also maintaining the usage of single core processors. Personally I remember the good old days where all the new products only contained the latest of technologies without regard for battery life, weight, or size.
In an age where cell phones rule the world it seems our foci are shifting from power and speed that we’ll never use to its full extent to the more compact, energy efficient, and lightweight designs that we might occasionally max out the processing power on. A large part of this likely has to do with the growing trend to make everything web accessible, I mean when I can access one of the most resource intensive apps I know of (Adobe Photoshop) from a web page, what’s the sense in carrying around a seven pound machine just because it has the power that I need to use Photoshop?
So I’m curious, what are your thoughts on the matter readers? Furthermore when do you think Intel and AMD are going to see this trend and start re-engineering their dual and quad core chips so they can be used in these extremely efficient devices? God knows although it’s not a major concern, some of these machines could really use the boost of a dual core.
I personally can’t understand this trend. I rather have short battery life than slow performance. Same trend can be applied to storage media on the video games industry. The first consoles had cartridges that had no loading whatsoever . Now the trend is to get even longer load times. Yes the storage amount is higher, but isn’t it time to make loading times disappear? What is really odd, is that the general community does not respond to this (except now you guys, of course). Are we the only ones with a short patience?
simple. computers are really about doing things, not performance or specs. most of the things we want to do, can be done on an eee type machine (performance wise).
1) Actually, no OS and No Apps take avantage of the dual or multi-core chip.
2) This trend is only about mobile device… you have the choice of a mobile device that works for 2hours or a mobile device thant can works for 10 hours… depenting of you choice.
You can buy a 17inches mobile computer with 1920×1200 HD screen…. but you can’t work more than an hour with it and or, if you travel arround the world, with 12 or more hours on the plane, having a computer that can do everything you want for 12h is maybe a better choice.
…
just my 2cents
Maybe you guys just over estimating the situation because not alot of umpc are sold, most people buy a laptop today that comes with a dual core 2 or amd x2 these days so i don’t see why you guys should be complaining . If you don’t like those umpc thing then just buy a performance laptop from alienware or watever. The market for umpc and ultra portable will sort itself out if enough people participate.
That would be incorrect. Unix, Linux and certain applications, can and do take advantage of dual or multi-core cpu’s.
@JDKChem
we’re talking about laptop. Even if you put Linux on the laptop, what do you do with it ? Office App ? Web Browsing ? Did you realy need a dual core for that ?
@Denis Bergeron: Perhaps JDKChem was referring to a unix based platform such as, say, OSX? Or maybe he just does ALOT of word processing and ALOT of web browsing all at the same time?
In reference to the article, I’m sure I read an interview with one of the guys at Intel who was beaming with pride about the new “Atom” branded processors. They apparently use Intels smallest ever transistors and that’s what made him so excited… as far as I can remember, the interview stated that this technology would form a backbone for future Intel chips. Ie. more powerful, more energy efficient and perhaps even smaller chips than we use today.
As far as the “low end” chips being used today (like in the Eeepc or the ECS G10IL) are concerned, it’s not so much that the speeds of these chips are exciting in themselves but rather the context in which those speeds are being obtained that is the attraction.
What do you do that you are looking for faster Computer. My Single Core computer is good enough for all works I do. Only if I play a recent game I will need a faster Computer.
eventually only those gamers need a faster cpu in my own opinion. but then with the help of Microsoft for creating more shit windows and Office, normal user will still need a faster cpu
The market has developed to match consumers needs (as markets must) and some need battery life more then speed and others like a balance and still more demand performance.
umm So does Mac OS x (linux kernel duhh!) and Vista was designed with the idea that over the products life span processors will go from dual and quad core to 8 and probably more. The marketing of battery life performance is not a new trend.
Why do people make claims like
“Actually, no OS and No Apps take avantage of the dual or multi-core chip.”
without ever doing any research (unless water cooler gossip counts as research)?
http://www.intel.com/intel/win.....graph1.jpg
a graphic representation of performance increase
http://developer.amd.com/Techn.....07123.aspx
a white paper on multi core performance and vista, including specific features in Vista.
p.s. Microsoft is not evil, Vista is a good os if you are willing to use it on todays hardware. Linux is also a good os if you are willing to take the time to learn how to use it.
p.p.s. We did land on the moon.
MrFancyPants
About 4 years ago, a massive shift to laptops started, fueled largely by Intel’s Centrino platform. People wanted to take their work, hobbies, and entertainment with them in a convenient carrying case.
Today, the shift is going to even more portability - the internet and more in your pocket. With a device such as the iPhone, I can (or will soon be able to) access all the files on any of my other computers, access web applications for word processing and other common tasks, connect to local networks for printing, file sharing, etc., and do so all day without having to recharge.
Then you have to consider the “emerging markets” like India where you don’t have a computer in nearly every home. What we consider a budget PC right now is a year’s salary for a large part of the population. Bring the cost down under $100 for a complete system with decent performance and suddenly there’s a couple million more people entering the computing age.
I’m all for improving performance with each new generation of processors. But I think that many people want/”need” that performance for one thing - PC gaming. My first question would be that if you consider yourself a “serious gamer”, why are you using a PC? My second question is, do you really need the portability of a laptop or even smaller device to play games? I’m not sure I could come up with even remotely acceptable answers; I haven’t been 13 in a long, long time. I still get a kick out of the occasional video game, but I’ve moved on to big boy games that don’t result in chronic obesity, like triathlons. And my multicore computers get used for big boy chores like professional video and music recording/editing, and CAD for design projects.
I don’t see multiple cores heading for ultra-mobile devices anytime soon, unless there is some significant power per performance boost in doing so. The trend is going to move to web-based applications that require little or no processing power from the device itself. The thinking is shifting from “how can I get this machine to work harder/faster?” to “how can I get another machine to do the work for me?”.
Actually is very simple.
Microsoft released the xbox, now you do not need a PC (a expensive one) to play PC games, you just need a xbox since every PC game now can be played in a console, that was not true before 2001.
Since the xbox the PC gaming is going in clear decline.
The PC gaming was the only reason to push better chips, since view movies, play mp3, surf the web, office documents, mail, etc can be done in any computer today, so why pay more for nothing.
Microsoft see that, and try to push the hardware with just windows, all we know how it end up.
Microsoft need growing PC market and more sells, it generates 95% of their money for PC others sell.
Microsoft need that every computer be replaced at least every 2 years, so they can sell you more windows licenses (how many windows xp you buy the last 7 years?)
Sadly for Microsoft they shoot in the foot, they kill the PC gaming (now they are trying to revive it with the PC alliance, but too little too late) now the people see that a computer they can buy now is not much faster that one 2 year old, that 2 or 4 gig of ram is not a difference at all.
In a few words a PC dont become obsolete in 1 year or 2.
Remember when you need to change your cell phone every year because the tech lap was big each year in the last decade, now you dont need do that, same with PCs, people are releasing they dont need the last tech in PC because is not a big lap.
Add that many things that you must need a PC the last decade are now posible without it, and you will understand why in some countries with top tech like japan the PC sales are in decline.
Most people use PC for internet (mail, chat, messenger, news, download, etc) the most time, and every day you can access the internet with more devices beside a PC (cell phone, game consoles, TV, etc) photos, mp3 and movies can be viewed in a TV without a PC, even the PC server files for photos, mp3, etc. do not need the latest more powerful chip.
If people keep buying them, they’ll keep selling them. If consumers shunned these single core chips and they were left lying on shelves, then you can bet they’ll stop producing them. I’d never spend $2000 on a laptop with an old generation chip in it, but if people are foolish enough to do this, then let them.
Lol, I liked the use of the plural version of “focus,” “foci.” That’s a vocab word if I have ever seen one.
It’s all to do with the consumer, in days gone past the consumer wanted bigger and better, the fastest processor the biggest memory. Now the market trend has changed, people want better battery life and more environmentally friendly technology. The question is why the market trend has changed, the answer to which is because technology firms find it easier and hence cheaper to re-develop older single core processors to make them energy efficient than to keep pushing the performance barrier onwards, they are still advancing just in a different direction, horizontally rather than vertically one might say.
I think what is going on is that they are simple now able to make these low power versions (e.g. Atom) of older chips and are trying to make hay with them. Give them a few years and we will have the n-core chips with low power too. I think a lot of people what something like UMPC (MID) with decent battery performance. I know I am getting tired of lugging around my old tablet with 2 extra battries but I want a very good battery performance otherwise I’ll be in the same boat.
RE:”Microsoft released the xbox, now you do not need a PC (a expensive one) to play PC games, you just need a xbox since every PC game now can be played in a console, that was not true before 2001.Since the xbox the PC gaming is going in clear decline.
The PC gaming was the only reason to push better chips, since view movies, play mp3, surf the web, office documents, mail, etc can be done in any computer today, so why pay more for nothing.”
False logic. Ragnarok Online isn’t on x-box
Besides, a new x-box, playstation , or nintendo is out every 2-3 years. I prefer to simply upgrade my video card or other pc parts instead of collecting a pile of consoles and their often machine specific games.