Intel brings forward Nehalem Launch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

:rofl:
I'd say that 10% is far too high estimation.
50%+:rofl:

Most programs don't need it though.

---

http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...-e4x00-p1.html

His software list is pretty well representative of both professional an non-professional applications available today.

Gen-2 games of course are not, but the majority of contemporary games are. Multicore processors have been out > 3 years now.

A month or two ago I was also :rofl: when someone said that same thing, then when I went out and actually looked... it's true, about 1/2 of what you can find is multithreaded (excluding the sharecrapware) and there is a multithreaded app available for most all catagories of usages you can find.

Video encoding -- yep.
NLE -- Yep
Photography -- yep
Games -- yep
compression -- yep

Software has done a more to catch up that what we realize.

On the single threaded material... it will vary, but you will be shocked when the numbers come out I suspect. What is more shocking, and make note of this ... it will be hard to find more single threaded benchmark data since there will be much much less of it when the reviews come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...-e4x00-p1.html

His software list is pretty well representative of both professional an non-professional applications available today.

Gen-2 games of course are not, but the majority of contemporary games are. Multicore processors have been out > 3 years now.

Video encoding -- yep.
NLE -- Yep
Photography -- yep
Games -- yep
compression -- yep

Software has done a more to catch up that what we realize.

---

You are right but just opening multiple threads and utilizing all this threads is still a very big different. I other words .. whats better ? : 2 full utilized Core or all cores with 12.5 % (quad core).

For examble:

Just found out that video encoding (Nero Suite) scales very well from 1 to 2 Cores (About 1.8x) but from 1 to 4 its only about 2.7x, which means one core is totaly obsolet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boschwanza

You are right but just opening multiple threads and utilizing all this threads is still a very big different. I other words .. whats better ? : 2 full utilized Core or all cores with 12.5 % (quad core).

For examble:

Just found out that video encoding (Nero Suite) scales very well from 1 to 2 Cores (About 1.8x) but from 1 to 4 its only about 2.7x, which means one core is totaly obsolet.

---

It doesnt mean 1 core is obsolete. Its about diminishing returns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boschwanza

You are right but just opening multiple threads and utilizing all this threads is still a very big different. I other words .. whats better ? : 2 full utilized Core or all cores with 12.5 % (quad core).

For examble:

Just found out that video encoding (Nero Suite) scales very well from 1 to 2 Cores (About 1.8x) but from 1 to 4 its only about 2.7x, which means one core is totaly obsolet.

---

Again, depends on the specific encoder and settings used.

x264 is one that scales well, 100% usage for 8 cores (it's been reported 16 cores as well and probably more when it comes out) when settings are maxxed out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boschwanza

You are right but just opening multiple threads and utilizing all this threads is still a very big different. I other words .. whats better ? : 2 full utilized Core or all cores with 12.5 % (quad core).

For examble:

Just found out that video encoding (Nero Suite) scales very well from 1 to 2 Cores (About 1.8x) but from 1 to 4 its only about 2.7x, which means one core is totaly obsolet.

---

Good point, I never said that the multithreaded apps were well multithreaded :) Windows Media Encoder will only split off two threads .. is another example.

The reason I made this point is about 2-3 months ago, I was developing a multitasking test scenario. What I wanted was one case where I had one dual threaded app, and two single threaded apps, in other cases I wanted all just general threaded apps.

It is now hard to find general single threaded apps that represent a mainstream like applications that puts any kind of load on the processor.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ

Again, depends on the specific encoder and settings used.

x264 is one that scales well, 100% usage for 8 cores (it's been reported 16 cores as well and probably more when it comes out) when settings are maxxed out

---

You are right x264 is a perfect example for very well optimized SMT (But thats the absolulty minor at least for Desktop APPs). Just try to recode a DVD to xvid and you will not scale as well.

I just wanted to say that you wont get a massive perfomance gain with a nehalem just because of the fact the application uses multithreading. Still depending on how good SMT scales with the cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...-e4x00-p1.html

His software list is pretty well representative of both professional an non-professional applications available today.

Gen-2 games of course are not, but the majority of contemporary games are. Multicore processors have been out > 3 years now.

A month or two ago I was also :rofl: when someone said that same thing, then when I went out and actually looked... it's true, about 1/2 of what you can find is multithreaded (excluding the sharecrapware) and there is a multithreaded app available for most all catagories of usages you can find.

Video encoding -- yep.
NLE -- Yep
Photography -- yep
Games -- yep
compression -- yep

Software has done a more to catch up that what we realize.

On the single threaded material... it will vary, but you will be shocked when the numbers come out I suspect. What is more shocking, and make note of this ... it will be hard to find more single threaded benchmark data since there will be much much less of it when the reviews come.

---

And you say that this list is representative?

How about office programs?
How about internet programs?
How about desktop management programs?
How about shell extensions?
How about tiny tools that do simple jobs?
How about media players and managers?
How about system management programs?

On the list you get mostly professional tools + games + archivers. Usually costly ones.
BTW on my computer I have 2 programs from the list. 1 is multithreaded. And used it like 2 times during ~year since I installed it.

Is there any difference between Bloomfield and Lynnfield other than QPI?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

Is there any difference between Bloomfield and Lynnfield other than QPI?

---

Lynnfield - dual-channel DDR3, on-die PCI-E, possible Intel IGP on package (might be just for duallies though)
Bloomfield - triple-channel DDR3, off-die PCI-E (on X58)

This almost deserved a new thread:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835114080

That's one messy looking HSF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IvanAndreevich

That's one messy looking HSF.

---

ya, looks like they didn't have an adequate fan for the heatsink and just put some random fan on it :p:

Ugly and propably inefficient cooler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

Ugly and propably inefficient cooler

---

Well, an efficient cooler doesn't have to be beautiful, but this one is probably inefficient yes :p:

We ve seen some News, about Nehalem launch in mid of September. Because i have a CPU and board too, i am waiting for NDA lifts ... but today i received message - end of NDA is postponed to October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OBR

We ve seen some News, about Nehalem launch in mid of September. Because i have a CPU and board too, i am waiting for NDA lifts ... but today i received message - end of NDA is postponed to October.

---

Did the message specify any specific time in October? I am really looking forward to Bloomfield and I'd like to get one soon, as I just sold my P35 motherboard and about to sell my QX9650 :(

in first or second week

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boschwanza

You are right but just opening multiple threads and utilizing all this threads is still a very big different. I other words .. whats better ? : 2 full utilized Core or all cores with 12.5 % (quad core).

For examble:

Just found out that video encoding (Nero Suite) scales very well from 1 to 2 Cores (About 1.8x) but from 1 to 4 its only about 2.7x, which means one core is totaly obsolet.

---

Ooopppp, did not see this message posted a couple of weeks ago.... should take a moment to answer.

You will find this to be true for many applications, in some others not so true and scaling is very good. There are a couple of reasons for this...

In general, two ways to look at computational parallelism ... 1) Task based and 2) data set based.

Let me explain 2 first -- data based parallism is basically a pool of data that needs to be crunched, and each element in the data domain is independent of any other. Software can then thread up as many threads as it likes, and the data set divided into as many subsets as needed, and away you go. This provides almost perfect scaling, because the thread is only depending on the data it is working on. Examples of this are GPUs with rendering and shading textures, or ray-tracing through divying up a scene (example, Cinebench cuts the scene into quarters and each thread goes as fast as the complextity of that segment takes it ... some segments finish earlier, and as such the remaining segment divides up again and off they go).

For 1, think of this as taking a single threaded instruction stream and looking for ways to chop it up into segments, sending each segment through in parallel. The problem is if your the segments you generate depend on the output or result of another there is ambiguity ... this type of programming is very difficult to achieve because the programmer must know something about the way the code behaves. Examples include -- cpu portion of gaming code, video encoding (predictive framing, motion compensation), etc. In this type of situation, Amdahl's Law comes into play, where no matter what you do no matter what you try, the speed up of a program spread over several execution resources will never scale to the multple of the total number of resources available... specifically due to the interdependency.

Then there is also other problems with thread level parallelism, mostly do to memory management. Example, a shared main memory pool serviced by discrete cache pools. There exists the possibility that as a address in main memory is copied between the two different discrete caches, one processor may change the information in one cache that at some point the thread on the other core will need access to. The ambiguity of discrete caches to have altered data at any point in time creates the coherency problem, which the CPU must rationalize before it can proceed. This of itself slows down the parallel speedup one may achieve in just the overhead in cohering the caches. This is true in most all cases, and special protocols are used to try and make it as efficient as possible.

So, in summary ... simply adding more cores to the problem will not guarantee a subsequent speed up in execution commensurate with the number of cores added. What I mean is, don't expect a 2x speed up going from 2 cores to 4, and don't expect 2x going from 4 to 8.

Jack

JumpingJack, you must be getting old :D

You had to have seen that post, you already replied to it :D Post 154.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aberration

JumpingJack, you must be getting old :D

You had to have seen that post, you already replied to it :D Post 154.

---

Yep, senility is setting in. I didn't recall seeing it, and as such thought it an interesting point to rebut ... most likely I did not even say the same thing :) --- edit: oooop, now I see --yeah, when I read the post something else popped into my head :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

And you say that this list is representative?

---

Yes, I think it is.

Quote:

---

How about office programs?

---

Excel is multithreaded. Not sure of the other apps, I think

Quote:

---

How about internet programs?

---

IE7 I don't think is, but flash adobe is most of the adobe suite.

Quote:

---

How about desktop management programs?

---

Haven't researched this, sure there are some that are and some that aren't. A savvy, computer knowledgeable person would know what they wanted and what it does.

Quote:

---

How about shell extensions?

---

Shell extensions are usually simple little utilities, not sure it is even needed. But to mention a few... Winrar, winzip also install as shell extensions and are multithreaded.

Quote:

---

How about tiny tools that do simple jobs?

---

Define tiny?

Quote:

---

How about media players and managers?

---

PowerDVD is multithreaded, as is WinDVD -- two very common apps.

Quote:

---

How about system management programs?

---

Lasts I looked, both Windows XP and Vista managed multiple cores and threads.

Again, one site who does a very comprehensive test suite enumerates a large portion of software representative from most usage scenarios and which are multithreaded:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...08-3-0-p1.html

I don't know about you, but looking through that list it appears more software is > 1 thread than that this is single threaded.

Quote:

---

TW on my computer I have 2 programs from the list. 1 is multithreaded. And used it like 2 times during ~year since I installed it.

---

Then you are not really using a computer, or don't know how. You are probably wasting your money... and definitely your time posting to a power user forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Excel is multithreaded. Not sure of the other apps, I think

---

Excel is far from being "most office apps".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

IE7 I don't think is, but flash adobe is most of the adobe suite.

---

Flash is not internet, but multimedia program. No browser, email client, IM, downloader I know of is multithreaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Haven't researched this, sure there are some that are and some that aren't. A savvy, computer knowledgeable person would know what they wanted and what it does.

---

I seriusly doubt that more than 1% of them is multithreaded. Actually I don't know even one...and it seems neither you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Shell extensions are usually simple little utilities, not sure it is even needed. But to mention a few... Winrar, winzip also install as shell extensions and are multithreaded.

---

You got the point, even though these extensions themselves aren't multithreaded, it's their function that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Define tiny?

---

Well, it's more about function than size, but usually less than 200 KB.
A few examples from my system:
BossKey - virtual desktops, very basic implementation
Deliminator - removes the wait when you try to delete a locked file by hacking system dlls
pixie - color picker
nrg2iso - converter
UPXUnpack v1 - unpacker
ForceDel - deletes stubborn files
Slower - slows down applications
RegShot - detects registry changes
TCMenu - lets you have menu under a button in Total Commander
Taskix - rearranges taskbar items
trid - file identifier
GSAR - search and replace in files
HDHacker - low level HDD access
Revelation - password revealer
TweakUI
babyftp - FTP server
KL-Detector - Key logger detector
cports - lists open ports
apt - kills applications that want to live
StartUpLite - removes useless startup entries
RegASSASSIN - like ForceDel, but for registry
Stripper - reduced PNG size
HTMLShrinkerLight - removes unnecessary characters from HTML code
TiDy - HTML cleaner / formatter
CLCL - clipboard manager
CamStudio - desktop recorder
RootkitRevealer - hunts rootkits
shexview - lists shell extensions
PrcView - Task manager
DShutdown - shutdown manager
PEiD - executable idetifier
AVImedic - heals corrupted .avis

I could add many more, I guess that they are all single threaded except ForceDel (though it's not that it needs a lot of computing power) and (unlikely) CamStudio + RootkitRevealer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

PowerDVD is multithreaded, as is WinDVD -- two very common apps.

---

OK, here you found something too. They are no match for Winamp in terms of popularity and neither is a manager, but at least it is something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Lasts I looked, both Windows XP and Vista managed multiple cores and threads.

---

I meant programs that you use to manage your system. I mentioned some in the "simple tools", but you could add i.e. defragmenter or regedit fit here too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Again, one site who does a very comprehensive test suite enumerates a large portion of software representative from most usage scenarios and which are multithreaded:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...08-3-0-p1.html

I don't know about you, but looking through that list it appears more software is > 1 thread than that this is single threaded.

---

You're repeating yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Then you are not really using a computer, or don't know how. You are probably wasting your money... and definitely your time posting to a power user forum.

---

:rofl: Please, log your CPU usage during whole day of work. How much time does it spend running at 100%?

Do you really find that list to be comprehensive enough to judge one's computer skills by counting number of programs from it that the person uses? :down:

Just hunting bits here, but how da hell do you expect stuff that is HDD dependant to be multithreaded? Like defragmenter (there's no point in multithreading it, the HDD speed is the bottleneck)

I wrote several posts above:

Quote:

---

Most programs don't need it though.

---

So I don't expect them to be multithreaded. Just note that they usually aren't and therefore "it is probably 1/2 or more is multithreaded" is totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m^2

Excel is far from being "most office apps".

---

It is the most commonly used spreadsheet, and the one that generates the most overhead. However, in my work environment I typically have at least 2-3 of the apps open, so multithreaded or not, the extra horsepower is noticeable in multitasking.

Quote:

---

Flash is not internet, but multimedia program. No browser, email client, IM, downloader I know of is multithreaded.

---

Flash is the most common multimedia object imbedded in web apps on the web... post a Youtube video, you will post flash.

Quote:

---

I seriusly doubt that more than 1% of them is multithreaded. Actually I don't know even one...and it seems neither you do.

---

Haven't researched it, I don't use desktop management software myself other than remote desktop for other systems.

Quote:

---

You got the point, even though these extensions themselves aren't multithreaded, it's their function that matters.

---

many other extensions run in the background, which are nothing more than a bunch of single threads... again, benefiting from extra cores. There are applications for extensions that do benefit and exists http://www.ssware.com/

Quote:

---

Well, it's more about function than size, but usually less than 200 KB.
A few examples from my system:
BossKey - virtual desktops, very basic implementation
Deliminator - removes the wait when you try to delete a locked file by hacking system dlls
pixie - color picker
nrg2iso - converter
UPXUnpack v1 - unpacker
ForceDel - deletes stubborn file

---

Interesting, a list of crap that nobody really uses except downloaded from shareware sites... some are useful i suppose, embedded with adware no doubt.

Quote:

---

OK, here you found something too. They are no match for Winamp in terms of popularity and neither is a manager, but at least it is something.

---

Winamp does not utilize it's own codecs ... but if you do play various files through this app it will call the multithreaded codecs you must install to use it.

Quicktime is mutlithreaded, as is sonic cinepak codecs from Roxio, as is the intervideo codecs, etc. etc. though Winamp does not support these, it does use Lame for encoding (which has MT variants you can use), hell even Windows media encoder is multithreaded.

Quote:

---

I meant programs that you use to manage your system. I mentioned some in the "simple tools", but you could add i.e. defragmenter or regedit fit here too.

---

Just checked, windows defragger spawns 7 threads doing one drive, windows desktop manager spawns 8, IE has 37 threads ... of course not all active, but you get the jist.

The point is, overall, the amount of multithreaded code today is much more available in most all the common usage scenarios that it makes quads viable.

Quote:

---

You're repeating yourself.

---

Of course I am, data is data you obviously did not spend any time researching your thesis.

Quote:

---

:rofl: Please, log your CPU usage during whole day of work. How much time does it spend running at 100%?

---

I have 3 quads going 100% 24x7.

Quote:

---

Do you really find that list to be comprehensive enough to judge one's computer skills by counting number of programs from it that the person uses? :down:

---

Yes. Look, if you are not a power user and simply email, surf the web, and use little shut down applet shell extensions, you don't even need a dual core... go get a Via Nano or Atom based system it will do all you need.