When Multi-core Processors Really Matter

A few years back, when I bought the parts for my current computer, I had a choice to make. Did I want a quad-core processor running at a slower speed, or a dual-core running at a faster speed? Because most programs back then, and many now, weren't mult-threaded, I chose the dual-core for the faster single core speed.

I'm happy to say, it has served me well, and I've barely noticed a hiccup in any programs ever. For most of my computer's life it has never crossed my mind that I should upgrade it. In fact, I've upgraded nearly everything else, but my processor. Recently, I've been thinking that it needs an upgrade.

Encoding Hell

Over the past few months, my processor has started to show its age, but in an unexpected way. Honestly, my current processor would work perfect for most people. However, my demands on my computer have changed, and I've started editing video.

Above is a screenshot of the encoding time of a 26 minute video I edited. It took 5 hours for my computer to put the video together, and that's with me compromising; using only single pass encoding. If I used what I wanted, two pass, it would roughly double the encoding time to 10 hours. That's an incredibly long time to wait for a video to encode, and it has me wishing for shorter encoding times.

Multiply Those Cores

While a lot of programs don't scale well with more CPU cores, video encoding does. The encoding process lends itself well to multi-threading, where each video frame can be processed independently from the others. All good video encoders today use this technique, spreading frames around to be processed by all cores simultaneously.

What this means is that if I upgrade from my dual-core processor to a quad-core, this should theoretically double how many frames are processed per second while encoding. This would half the encoding time. While being twice as fast probably will not happen, I'm convinced it will take at least 2 hours off the shown 5 hour encoding time.

Why DirectX Installs Every Time You Install A Game

One thing that's become more visible lately is the installation of DirectX. Thanks to Steam, this has become a lot less translucent to consumers and more in your face. Below is an example of what I'm talking about. After downloading the King's Bounty demo, and starting it for the first time, I am forced to wait for DirectX to install. You can understand how this frustrates some people who want to know why DirectX is installed again and again, even though it's already been installed.

The truth is, DirectX, which powers most Windows games, gets installed almost every time you install a game, whether it's a Steam game or not. What most people don't know is that this has been true for years. While Windows comes with DirectX already installed, that doesn't mean it's updated to the version the game needs. This means developers need to update DirectX themselves if it's necessary.

That's where the DirectX installation that you see with every new Steam game comes in. This installer checks to see if the computer has the correct DirectX version and components for the game. If your DirectX needs an update, it will install the update before launching the game. If your DirectX has what the game needs, the installer will leave DirectX alone and install nothing. So really, it's more of a check and install, instead of just a straight up install.

The last thing to talk about is why you don't always see DirectX installed with retail games. While some games that seemingly don't install DirectX truly don't install DirectX, most do, but in silent mode. The DirectX installer that Microsoft releases can be told to install quietly, without bugging the user with an installation wizard. This is what Steam uses. It installs in silent mode, so you don't have to click through an install wizard. While it runs the installer, it tells you what it's doing with the dialog box pictured above.

So, next time you get impatient waiting for Steam to install DirectX, just be glad you don't need to update it manually.

A Hello Again and A Quick Mention

I've been on, what I suppose you could call, a hiatus for the past couple months. Life happened, my health hasn't been the best, and in the midst of it all I lost my motivation. Just thought I'd let anyone still hanging around the site know I'm alive and plan to start writing again as soon as I can muster something up.

In other news, my brother's blog, A Green Mushroom, is doing well. It even got mentioned in a Massively article. I'm proud of him, staying motivated when I can't. Great work bro!

Google Keyboard Navigation: I Loathe You

Google has done a lot for the web and the internet. They are pioneers in so many things, that I probably can't remember them all off the top of my head. While Google has made many things I love (Google Search, Gmail, Google Chrome), many things I feel indifferent about (Google Docs, Google Desktop, Blogger), and many things I don't have a use for (Google Health, Google Earth, Google Voice), I have never hated anything they have made.

Seeing how I mentioned hating something by Google, you can probably guess that I finally hate something they've done.

Google released Google Instant recently, which instantly updates the Google results page as you type. I love it, I think it neat, cool, groovy. Then, to make it "easier" to use, they updated the results page with keyboard navigation. With keyboard navigation, when you hit up or down on the arrow keys, you arrow through the results, kind of like selecting something from a menu with arrow keys (video above).

This is supposed to help you, but for me, it's awkward, jarring, and not what I expect when I hit the arrow keys. If you use the arrow keys often when browsing the web, like me, you should be familiar with their standard function of scrolling. You should be able to scroll on my blog, trying hitting the up and down arrow keys now. See that scrolling action? I bet you can understand how frustrating it is when that doesn't work when searching Google.

Google, please remove keyboard navigation and let me scroll using arrow keys, like every other webpage on the internet.

Intel Sells 'Upgrades' to Unlock Processor Features That Should Never Have Been Locked

It was recently discovered that Intel is selling $50 cards that unlock processor features in the Intel Pentium G6951. The pre-upgrade locked version of the G6951 is a dual-core Core i3 processor running at 2.8GHz with 3MB of included L3 cache and no Hyper-Threading. With this upgrade card you are able to unlock Hyper-Threading and an additional 1MB of L3 cache. While this is a noticeable upgrade, Intel has no excuse as to why these unlockable features are locked in the first place.

Locking processor features is nothing new in the industry. Intel has been doing it for years, but for reasons that aren't about ripping off customers. Traditionally, processor features are locked when it is discovered that a part of a processor is defective. Locking these defective parts of a processor allow the processor to run correctly, at the cost of some speed. These processors are then sold, as a lower end processor model, for a discounted price. There's nothing wrong with this, it's a good use of defective hardware that would otherwise be thrown away and allows customers to buy cheaper, slower processors that still work well.

This upgrade plan that Intel is trying out is the opposite of good business. It's blatantly locking functional sectionals of a CPU in order to try to choke money out of unknowing customers down the line.

To top it off, Hot Hardware already did the research for something that I suspected. This is what they found out:

"The $50 price tag, however, isn't much of a deal. According to Intel's own records, the G6950 currently sells for $87 in 1K lots. $51 higher up the ladder, there's the Intel Core i3-550. Compared to the G6950/6951, the i3-550 is 400MHz faster, includes Hyper-Threading, offers the same 4MB of L3, and officially supports DDR3-1333 as opposed to just DDR3-1066. As an added bonus, its GPU is 200MHz faster than the G6950's (though we don't know the 6951's GPU clock yet). Given Intel's current price structure, a Core i3-550 system is likely to be a better deal."

I'm very disapointed in you Intel. I thought you were better than this.

To Boldly Motivate Where No One Has Motivated Before

The YouTubes

I try to not put up youTube videos much(except StarCraft of course). I don't want to be a youTube blog, I want to be a me blog. Which might not be much better, but at least I don't spam youTube clips. Every once in a while, though, I feel that I should share some of the videos that made be smile. Today, is one of those days.