Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 5:42:03 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:

In some cases, this ability to adjust things is important,
for example, when the OS gets the metrics for running
programs all wrong. There is currently a situation
where an 8C 16T Ryzen CPU is being viewed as a 16C
processor. Performance suffers, because too many
threads are launched. A means is needed to intervene,
and you could, for example, use the Affinity tick boxes
to change the behavior slightly. Notice that the AMD
rep ("evangelist"), just "blows off" this issue.


Not just Ryzen problem. Intel compilers have an "auto-parallize" option.
It doesn't find code that it can split up that often, but when it does,
it spawns 8 threads on an i7, thinking hyperthreading is actual cores.

John Doe wrote:

"Yes" wrote:

Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there
consumer software now that actually uses the multi-core CPU
technology? I mean, all the additional cores sounds nice,
but has any consumer s/w caught up with the hardware?

Your premise is invalid. In addition to a jillion Windows
background processes, users almost always have many of their
own programs going at the same time. We are never talking
about just one program, let alone a single thread.

Obviously you are concerned with processing power, so the
question is whether you want few faster cores or many slower
cores. You need to specify the applications in order to
receive a valid answer. I think the best answer is found by
asking people who use the applications you plan to use.

I have not bothered looking to see whether my modern quad
core eight thread CPU is filling up all cores and virtual
threads, because I have no doubt it is efficiently using all
of them. Multicore CPUs have been around for decades. Windows
and the CPU itself, not an individual program, controls the
use of cores.

Quit putting words into my mouth and twisting them to suit your
preconceptions! Your reply is antagonistic. I asked, as a lteral
question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take
advantage of all the cores that hardware provides. At one time, the
idea of multi-core CPUs was news, and the buzz from that time was that
the multi-core CPUs were an answer for a question that had not been
asked. It was NEW, and s/w till then had been designed for use in a
single core environment. At that time, it was projected that programs
video editing and games would be the quickest to adapt to the then
new technology.

It's been several years now since I last followed where s/w has gone
keeping up with the hardware (the multi-core CPU tech), so I was
curious. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm fortunate in that I don't 'have to' upgrade or buy new s/w on any
frequent basis nor to upgrade/replace my hardware. When I do, however,
it's useful to be aware of such things.

John Howland

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017, wrote:

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 1:26:14 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:

One of the "accelerator" concepts, was a "private"
dual processor board, used only by Photoshop.
At the time, I think it ran at around 66MHz.
Your motherboard in this case, would have just
one core, but the accelerator card had two DSP
chips on it.

SuperMac ThunderStorm DSP card 66 MHZ
AT&T 3210 DSP x 2 ?
Can't find a decent picture.

Back in late 80s, I worked on a PC that had an "array processor" plugged
into a slot, as the host was a Compaq 486, far too slow to do the math.
I think that array processor was rated at 8 MegaFLOPS (about 1/10 of
a Pentium III).

People did all kinds of things, but then it often meant they had to write
all their software, or live with limited software.

Steve Ciarcia in Byte had a Z8000 board for the "IBM PC", his first intent
wsa to speed up math functions, rather than a board to generally take over
the computer. There was the DTACK Grounded board, a 68000, for the Apple
II, that likewise initially just did math functions, though once it was
out there, it saw more use. But I don't think in either case any
commercial software was adapted to it.

Even earlier, there was a phase where some were interfacing Commodore
calculator ICs to their 8bit computers, it wasn't so much a speed up as
giving floating point match without having to write software. But that
was only useful for the people who made the effort, too few for any
commercial software to adapt.

Michael

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC), "Yes"
wrote:

I asked, as a lteral
question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take
advantage of all the cores that hardware provides.

The literal answer, at least among programming circles, is that
writing predictive analysis and branching logic for structural
deployment across core arrays, is literally one of the most difficult
endeavors in a universe of programming. It's not only as much a
matter of practically encompassing technological advancements, but a
bent, logically, for wrapping "one's ears" around a wider-than-round
course given to present trends.

Once upon a time we know we were the one. Then the one ran smack into
a brick wall called 4GHz. Molecular resistance or physics in the
electron pathways, which no doubt gets them and steals the show every
time.

A consortium of the world's leading scientists was then proposed.
After much deliberation over a matter assayed in demographic marketing
stratagems -- "go wide" emerged to surface as the final solution. As
many possible logical processing units in a parallel construct were
then issued to counter the brick speed wall. And that is how the
blueprint for your basic supercomputer emerged.

The idea that ordinary software determines the cores it runs
on is just silly. A program cannot "take advantage of all the
cores that hardware provides" since ordinarily it has no idea
how many cores that is. Intel still produces single core
CPUs. However, the obvious related question can be answered,
as described in my first reply.


--
"Yes" noone invalid.invalid.com wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Yes" noone invalid.invalid.com
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Is there consumer s/w available now that uses multi-core CPUs?
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: oiok42$g1c$1 dont-email.me
References: oiknup$t2c$1 dont-email.me oim24i$ff0$1 dont-email.me
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a32cebe2271320dfe95ffe97b5eb8011"; logging-data="16428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aW2w+BMIQb3orFPNsfxRgHd9i3qLh3 2w="
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.19.1.320
Cancel-Lock: sha1McR442KrI+njI4dXTEWcahhM8E=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:36247

John Doe wrote:

"Yes" noone invalid.invalid.com wrote:

Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there
consumer software now that actually uses the multi-core CPU
technology? I mean, all the additional cores sounds nice,
but has any consumer s/w caught up with the hardware?

Your premise is invalid. In addition to a jillion Windows
background processes, users almost always have many of their
own programs going at the same time. We are never talking
about just one program, let alone a single thread.

Obviously you are concerned with processing power, so the
question is whether you want few faster cores or many slower
cores. You need to specify the applications in order to
receive a valid answer. I think the best answer is found by
asking people who use the applications you plan to use.

I have not bothered looking to see whether my modern quad
core eight thread CPU is filling up all cores and virtual
threads, because I have no doubt it is efficiently using all
of them. Multicore CPUs have been around for decades. Windows
and the CPU itself, not an individual program, controls the
use of cores.

Quit putting words into my mouth and twisting them to suit your
preconceptions! Your reply is antagonistic. I asked, as a lteral
question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take
advantage of all the cores that hardware provides. At one time, the
idea of multi-core CPUs was news, and the buzz from that time was that
the multi-core CPUs were an answer for a question that had not been
asked. It was NEW, and s/w till then had been designed for use in a
single core environment. At that time, it was projected that programs
video editing and games would be the quickest to adapt to the then
new technology.

It's been several years now since I last followed where s/w has gone
keeping up with the hardware (the multi-core CPU tech), so I was
curious. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm fortunate in that I don't 'have to' upgrade or buy new s/w on any
frequent basis nor to upgrade/replace my hardware. When I do, however,
it's useful to be aware of such things.

John Howland

Flasherly wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 15:16:18 -0000 (UTC), "Yes"
wrote:

I asked, as a lteral
question, are there consumer programs now that are designed to take
advantage of all the cores that hardware provides.
The literal answer, at least among programming circles, is that
writing predictive analysis and branching logic for structural
deployment across core arrays, is literally one of the most difficult
endeavors in a universe of programming. It's not only as much a
matter of practically encompassing technological advancements, but a
bent, logically, for wrapping "one's ears" around a wider-than-round
course given to present trends.



When I was in school we learned that 10% of the code takes 90% of the
execution time. Obviously, that small part is what you want to speed
up. Algorithmic techniques such as sorting seem a natural place to try
to parallelize.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:12:59 -0400, Bill
wrote:

When I was in school we learned that 10% of the code takes 90% of the
execution time. Obviously, that small part is what you want to speed
up. Algorithmic techniques such as sorting seem a natural place to try
to parallelize.

I got as far as Emory University sophomore course for designing
chipsets. A nice and meaty course book I found in the Salvation Army,
which I thought interesting material.

I've also read something similar, more so if I borrow your figures and
make the transposition -- that 90% of code-work already exists in
modulated form, that programmers borrow and plug in the modules where
necessary. The algorithmic technique is likely to be found in a
programmer's grade computer, well-built for comprising virtual
machines capable of algorithmic representation of all stages -- first
the code itself, followed by compilation and debugging layer, for
final and last stage, monitoring execution while to tweaking in code
for the desired result;- Some may exist, in the final stage, capable
of virtualizing more than one operating system displayed
simultaneously, for program portability.

When they then turn around to say their program is unique for being
faster than another similar or existing class of program, it's often
touted for being a derivable of assembly language or minimalist
handling of key modules from (without or less efficacy being
introduced by) the compiler stage.

I once watched a contractual bid take place. A pair of out-of-state
programmers come in to setup an inhouse telemetry monitoring station
compiled for Microsoft's spreadsheet on an NT workstation. Two guys,
probably come in on a Chevy 6 by the looks of them, for no telling how
few multiples of a hundred-thousand-dollars that might entail. I had
worked there from ground zero, which otherwise means a long
matriculation period, for a relatively stable environment, or a
perfunctory if appreciable sense of what the salaried jay-O-bee means.
IOW, I did all my stock trading after working all night when
moonlighting as a day trader.

On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 12:00:57 AM UTC-4, Yes wrote:
Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there consumer
software now that actually uses the multi-core CPU technology? I mean,
all the additional cores sounds nice, but has any consumer s/w caught
up with the hardware?

TIA,

John Howland

I tried my hand at C# multithreading and it's harder than it looks. Interesting that one 'sample' was for graphics, where the pixels of each picture are independent of the others.

One game that does multi-threading (multi-core) is computer chess playing.

But as Paul says, the applications are thin.

I think a bigger benefit of multi-cores is that you can run several apps simultaneously. I just wish that Intel/AMD would have a "master core" so that when the internet incoming data stream freezes, as often happens, your entire CPU does not lock up for a few seconds or sometimes half a minute, as often happens on my Windows 10, core 2 duo with a SSD drive. Annoying. There should be an OS manager kernel or something that makes this impossible or less probable.

RL

On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 1:30:51 AM UTC+8, RayLopez99 wrote:

I think a bigger benefit of multi-cores is that you can run several apps simultaneously. I just wish that Intel/AMD would have a "master core" so that when the internet incoming data stream freezes, as often happens, your entire CPU does not lock up for a few seconds or sometimes half a minute, as often happens on my Windows 10, core 2 duo with a SSD drive. Annoying. There should be an OS manager kernel or something that makes this impossible or less probable.


I would like to see CPU made with a "boss core" for MPI (well at least when you
have more than 8 cores.) The boss core is doing different stuff to the other
worker cores, and so has different optimisation.

RayLopez99 wrote:

Yes wrote:

Maybe OT, but given the thread about future CPUs, is there
consumer software now that actually uses the multi-core
CPU technology? I mean, all the additional cores sounds
nice, but has any consumer s/w caught up with the
hardware?

One game that does multi-threading (multi-core) is computer
chess playing.

There are plenty of others.

But as Paul says, the applications are thin.

True or not, that would be irrelevant to the benefit of
multicore CPUs. In fact, modern PCs usually have hundreds of
processes and thousands of threads running at the same time.

What part of that is difficult understand?

I think a bigger benefit of multi-cores is that you can run
several apps simultaneously.

Yeah, or hundreds of processes and thousands of threads like
with a typical modern PC. You are supposed to be a
programmer?