Dual-core not quite two for the price of one
Published: 01 Aug 2005 13:50 BST
If you were wondering when dual-core processors were going to enter the mainstream, the answer is now revealed — it should be very soon. AMD is pricing its dual-core processors for the back-to-school market to persuade families that they need a dual-core, Athlon processor to make their system zip along.
The pricing is good, but that's not the whole story. The real reason dual-core chips are here isn't because of user demand, but because this is the only technical way to keep Moore's Law going without meltdown. You do get double the chip, but each bit isn't quite as swift as before. Some software will run faster, some slower, and you can guess which side of the equation the marketing department concentrates on. Dual core may be for you, but you should look carefully at the mix of software you'll run on it.
The second problem is that the application vendors are not quite sure what to do with dual-core. If a dual-core processor is really two processors in one, then shouldn’t they charge twice as much money for the licence? Well that was certainly the attitude taken by Oracle which announced a double premium for dual-core before being forced to relent, a little. It still charges twice for a dual-core processor, but at a 25 percent discount.
This is not a strategy likely to be pursued by many vendors. Others, like Adobe, don't charge extra — instead, they write their software to take advantage of the extra resources and run faster for the same price. In the end, this is the approach that will justify dual-core and multicore processors and reward those that see competitive advantage as a better bet than higher prices.
For now, dual-core and virtualisation are creating confusion. While that lasts, some will take advantage to squeeze or mislead the market.
That won't work for long. Users want simpler pricing and higher performance, and they want it in software like anything else. Oracle and others will just have to live with that.
Did you find this article useful?
35 out of 67 people found this useful
- Share this article:
