A recent article on the utility of multiple cores has been making the rounds. Despite being largely a copy/paste of other articles and graphics, with a smidge of editorial commentary, it is anxiously heralded by dual-core owners as purchase justification in the face of progressing technology.

[As fair disclosure, let me say that I'm about to purchase a quad-core processor based system, and this article and its sources did absolutely nothing to dissuade me from this choice]

The meat of the article (or rather the articles that are referenced by the article -- someone else did the dirty, arduous footwork work of benchmarking) is comprised of a showdown between a 2.4Ghz quad-core and a 3.0Ghz dual-core, which is reasonable given that they're comparable in price [at writing the 3.0Ghz dual-core E6850 can be had for $384 CDN, while the 2.4Ghz quad-core Q6600 is $319 CDN]. Given that many games and applications are effectively single-threaded as a legacy of lowest-common denominator development, the faster clock speed dual-core processor abstractly takes the lead in such fundamentally synthetic benchmarks for the pricepoint.

Aside from the questionable "it's good to have one extra core to allow you to kill bad processes" premise (what if those bad processes are multithreaded? Do you just have to buy bad-process-threads+1 cores? Maybe set the affinity such that you've dedicated a core solely for the task manager? In the real world of modern schedulers, the only time you can't get control of the machine to kill a rogue process is because of some absolutely atrocious elements of the implementation of Windows, and a scheduler that is effectively broken in the face of some situations. Neither is necessarily improved by more cores), what really gets me about the whole exercise is how utterly synthetic it really is, using contrived benchmarks instead of rationally considering how people actually use their PCs, and where their real need for more power comes from.

Firstly, it largely focuses on games benchmarks. Even if gaming performance is pertinent to the reader, for the majority of users playing the majority of games, their video card is far more of a bottleneck than their processor (even if their processor is a dated affair). I'm saying this as a long time computer gamer -- one that finds the stuttering framerate on even top of the line game consoles intolerable: unless you've turned every quality setting to low and you're running at 800x600, it's doubtful that you're going to even measure, much less notice, a difference between a modern 2.4Ghz core and a 3.0Ghz core. Indeed, the very first benchmark I looked at on the referenced article says exactly that: "For this test, we set Oblivion's graphical quality to "Medium" but with HDR lighting enabled and vsync disabled, at 800x600 resolution". They did that to create a scenario where the differences are measurable.

So if you plan to game in a contrived way for the purposes of demonstrating CPU differences in benchmarks, then you'd better pay attention to core speed.

In the real world of gaming, after you've adjusted the quality and resolution settings to appropriate settings for your video card, the primary slowdowns during gaming tend to come about because of external applications rudely stealing your thread quanta: I'm about to toss the grenade into the bunker in Battlefield 2 when suddenly Windows Search has decided that this is a good time to rebuild its index corpus, for instance, so instead it falls to the ground and I take out my entire squad (Seriously, Windows Search guys - when a full-screen DirectX game is running, it probably isn't a good time to decide that the PC is "idle").

For moments like that, more cores make a huge difference. Dual-cores would be sufficient for that simple scenario, but what if my PC is even more active, as it always is? Perhaps the blog updater is running an update, I'm FTPing some files, a download is happening, and I'm gaming.

Every core works towards the ultimate goal of eliminating the real world problem of cycle theft from my hardcore gaming.

Presuming that you've passed a reasonable bar -- long behind you when you're talking about a 2.4Ghz Core 2 -- more cores will realistically improve things for gamers enjoying their vice in the real world. One day we might even have a world where we don't have to shut down services and trawl taskmanager violently killing processes before launching a game, fearful that it will disrupt our immersion.

My second problem with the article is that it doesn't question what people are really waiting for nowadays. Personally I see almost no difference between virtually any mainstream PC for the overwhelming majority of day to day operations (and this is as a developer) -- most activities are so fast the difference is negligible. I just switched laptops from a single-core 1.6Ghz Pentium M to one with a Core 2 Duo T7200 -- a significant improvement -- and from a day to day perspective I've indeed notice that the new laptop has a better screen, a faster harddrive, and much better graphics, but the computational difference is largely unnoticed.

Until, humorously, I do something that is highly parallelizable, such as encoding a video pulled in from the miniDV video camera. In that case the dual-core processor strides to a massive lead over its single core predecessor. If it were a quad-core, it would storm even further ahead, even with the loss of frequency.

For something that I'm actually waiting on, more cores = more goodness.

I would definitely choose the quad-core processor for the software reality legacy that we have today, despite the many applications that in the singular fail to exploit the possibility. My conviction is amplified by the tremendous strides that application developers are making to parallelize their products. Once you've parallelized to 2 cores, it's generally a very small step to parallelize to 4 cores, or n cores for that matter.

Bring on the cores!