How end users can utilize multicore processors

In recent years, the average desktop/workstation computer has gone from single core to multiple cores. Those of us who do video encoding, compression, or run a lot of processes at once are absolutely loving it. Where does everyone else fit in?

Why multiple cores?

How many operations a particular CPU core could do at once has been increasing over the years. If we compare what we can do today with what were able to do a decade ago, we see we've come a long way. Our CPU cores were once doubling in speed every 18 months. However, in recent times, it seems trying to push the CPU farther and farther in how much it could do at once has been steadily getting closer and closer to the theoretical maximum. There's only so much we can do to make the various components that make up a CPU get closer together on the silicon, or work better together, with today's technology, and without making the chip catch fire. Therefore, we went to the next logical step, put more than one CPU on each CPU slab we stick in our motherboards.

Are CPUs currently fast enough?

CPUs have gotten so fast in recent years, that for normal every day usage, they're fast enough. Whether I'm browsing the web, writing an e-mail, doing some math, painting a pretty picture, listening to music, watching a video, doing my taxes, or most other common tasks, nothing about the machine's speed disappoints me. I've found 2 GHz to be fast enough. Unlike the old days, I'm not sitting in front of a machine wishing it could go faster, or subconsciously reaching for my remote to hit the fast forward button while watching a program load or complete an operation. Of course increased memory availability played a role in this too. In any event, computers made in the past 5 years or so have been fast enough for most people.

So what can multiple cores do for me?

Well, for certain applications, where large processes can be broken up into other smaller independent processes, the processes can be completed faster. For video encoding, a video frame can be broken up into quadrants, each one handled individually. For compression, a file can be broken up into chunks, and each compressed separately. You can now also run a lot of processes at once. You can have an HTTP Server, an application server, and a database server all running on a single machine without any one of them slowing the others down. Even for home users, you can run more background processes, such as your virus scanner while you're working on other projects. For programmers like myself, it's great, I can compile multiple programs at once, or have a program compiling in the background, while still doing other stuff, such as burning a DVD, listening to music, and reading CNN, with everything being really fast and responsive, and without my DVD drive spitting out a coaster. Also, if you like running multiple operating systems at once using VirtualBox or something similar, you can assign each operating system you're currently using its own CPU.

So what can't multiple cores do?

Multiple cores can't make single threaded applications work faster. If all you're doing is playing your average game, or writing a letter or something similar, you'll have one core being used to it's maximum, while the others are just sitting there doing nothing.

Why aren't more applications multi-threaded?

This is simply a matter of there's nothing to do to make them multi-threaded. In a program where every single operation is based off of the result of the previous operation, there is no way to break it up into two components, to run each in a different thread, and by extension, each in a different CPU core. Even if there are a couple of occasional segments that can be broken up, in many cases it may not be worth the overhead of doing so. Multi-threading only works well when there's large segments each containing many operations in them that can be broken up. Multi-threading fails if the two threads have to constantly sync results between them.

So why should the average user bother for 4 or 8 core processors?

This is an excellent question. Why should a business or average home user waste money on these higher end CPUs? Let me call your attention to a few other points about modern computers.

Modern desktop computers even at home and work generally come with:

• 6 audio jacks in the rear, 2 in the front
• 8 or more USB ports
• A video card with two DVI connectors
• A motherboard which supports 2 video cards

Now of course there's cases where you want 7.1 sound, and lots of microphones, and other devices plugged in, your cameras, gamepads, and printers (hey, printers belong attached to your network switch!), multiple screens, or lots of video cards working together on video like CPUs do in the cases similar to what I highlighted above.

Now if you realize what you have, it all seems a little too convenient.
4 cores - 4 users.
8 audio jacks - Speakers + Microphone per user for 4 users.
8 USB ports - Keyboard+Mouse per user for 4 users.
2 video cards with 2 DVI each - 4 screens.

It almost seems like the average machine you can buy for $500-$600 is asking you to use it for 4 users!

Now the great thing is, even average integrated sound cards allow each jack to receive their own programming, and plugging something in one jack doesn't force mute another. On many models, even a jack's primary use of input/output is really left up to the software, and only the average drivers force it to be one or the other.

You can buy extension cords to keep your "virtual" computers further away from each other. You can get powered USB hubs to provide as many USB ports you want to each user, or get keyboards which offer additional USB ports on them so users can plug in thier own devices such as memory sticks.

Now look back at the average home user. Who at home with only a single computer doesn't get the wife or kids nagging they want to do something? Who at home or at work wouldn't like to cut costs a bit? You already are going to have to buy several screens, speakers, keyboards, and mice. Now just buy one computer, maybe spend $100-$200 on it more than you wanted to, and perhaps another $50 on extension cords, and now you don't have to buy another 1-3 computers, which would add on $400-$2000.

Imagine even if you're a power user who does a lot of intensive projects that you need that really powerful computer for. How often are you really encoding those videos? Can you just have them queued up to be done at night while everyone is sleeping?

You can now also spend a little extra on that processor and video card to keep your son happy playing all those new games, while you get a lot more power out of your computer during normal hours while he's doing homework, and you're doing your taxes, all on the same machine, and still end up saving money. You also now only have to run that virus scanner on a single machine in the background, instead of several.

So now the question is, can we already do this? And how well can we do it?
There's some articles you can read, on how to set it up, but it seems a lot more of a hassle than one would like.

It'd be really nice to have a special multiseat optimized distro ready to be used in such a manner out of the box. Or perhaps a distro such as Ubuntu provided a special mode for it. Maybe even GNOME or KDE should have an admin setting where they can detect your current setup and offer an option turn the multiple virtual desktops they have on them into an environment suitable for multiple users with just a single click.

Of course this would probably need a lot more work done in the sound area to provide a virtual sound system to each user, and make sure the underlying drivers can work with each audio jack independently. Also would mean they'd have to understand how to sandbox each particular virtual desktop now residing on each screen to the inputs in front of it.

Thoughts?