Just because YOU have a mult-core processor doesn't mean EVERYONE does. I have a dual core, but I'd bet that more than half of the world still runs single-core.
Since operating systems are typically supported into the life of their successors, an individual still running a single-core processor could continue to run with their current OS. XP is still supported and Vista will likely be supported to a point in the life of its successor. If someone wants to continue running their older, single-core processor, they'll still have options for awhile yet.
Now this is a bit extreme but their does come a point when it's time to upgrade - even if you don't care about the latest and greatest OS and hardware. Just because my 12 year old Dell XPS (Pentium I @ 200 MHz; Win95) is still running does not mean I should expect Microsoft to still support the hardware with their new OS.
Guys, guys, there is nothing wrong with 1 CPU. For a lot of applications 1 extremely fast core beats out a multi-core processor any day of the week for things like gaming, video rendering, etc. In fact, I am debating getting rid of my dual core and getting a very fast AMD single core processor (it seems to be the same price as a slower dual core, and I need raw power more than I need multitasking.)
Requiring more than one core just means that MSFT cannot design a good process management system into their system to account for less cores than there are processes. What they should be requiring is a 64 bit chip.
I'd double check your sources on that one. While its true that if an application is not written to support multi cores (Which is pretty much nothing in the video editing world, and its its starting to catch on in gaming, the two examples you listed) then a faster single core should beat the slower dual core. But you'll never see this happen, because all the dual/quad cores out right now are so efficient that they still beat the single cores. They have much bigger L2 caches/faster FSB. Not to mention the program could end up with a dedicated core, while the other core(s) keep the rest of the system running, making things even more efficient. I'd double check your sources on any benchmarks you read that told you this information because its plain wrong. If you really want to get rid of your dual core I'll gladly take it. Check the CPU charts over at Toms Hardware for a start. You won't see any single core CPUs till wayyyyyy near the bottom of any of those lists.
Microsoft won't jeopardize all of their big corporate contracts by forcing multi-core. Microsoft cares more about that than it does making your Crysis look pretty.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pismodude @ Feb 9th 2008 4:15PM
Ugh.
Tiptup300 @ Feb 9th 2008 8:16PM
M$ has to eventually just STOP allowing single core processors sometime. They are slowing down progress.
Its fir the greater good.
computer.dude.28 @ Feb 9th 2008 10:18PM
Just because YOU have a mult-core processor doesn't mean EVERYONE does. I have a dual core, but I'd bet that more than half of the world still runs single-core.
John @ Feb 10th 2008 4:13AM
@ computer.dude.28
Since operating systems are typically supported into the life of their successors, an individual still running a single-core processor could continue to run with their current OS. XP is still supported and Vista will likely be supported to a point in the life of its successor. If someone wants to continue running their older, single-core processor, they'll still have options for awhile yet.
Now this is a bit extreme but their does come a point when it's time to upgrade - even if you don't care about the latest and greatest OS and hardware. Just because my 12 year old Dell XPS (Pentium I @ 200 MHz; Win95) is still running does not mean I should expect Microsoft to still support the hardware with their new OS.
Nick Catalano @ Feb 10th 2008 10:11AM
Guys, guys, there is nothing wrong with 1 CPU. For a lot of applications 1 extremely fast core beats out a multi-core processor any day of the week for things like gaming, video rendering, etc. In fact, I am debating getting rid of my dual core and getting a very fast AMD single core processor (it seems to be the same price as a slower dual core, and I need raw power more than I need multitasking.)
Requiring more than one core just means that MSFT cannot design a good process management system into their system to account for less cores than there are processes. What they should be requiring is a 64 bit chip.
shiba @ Feb 10th 2008 11:29AM
@Nick
I'd double check your sources on that one. While its true that if an application is not written to support multi cores (Which is pretty much nothing in the video editing world, and its its starting to catch on in gaming, the two examples you listed) then a faster single core should beat the slower dual core. But you'll never see this happen, because all the dual/quad cores out right now are so efficient that they still beat the single cores. They have much bigger L2 caches/faster FSB. Not to mention the program could end up with a dedicated core, while the other core(s) keep the rest of the system running, making things even more efficient. I'd double check your sources on any benchmarks you read that told you this information because its plain wrong. If you really want to get rid of your dual core I'll gladly take it. Check the CPU charts over at Toms Hardware for a start. You won't see any single core CPUs till wayyyyyy near the bottom of any of those lists.
416Hammy @ Feb 10th 2008 12:34PM
Microsoft won't jeopardize all of their big corporate contracts by forcing multi-core. Microsoft cares more about that than it does making your Crysis look pretty.
Tiptup300 @ Feb 10th 2008 8:09PM
heh heh, I'm running a celeron single core processor thats equivalent to the P3, that doesn't mean I don't believe in progress.