I wrote the simplified Desktop Search application to examine multi-threading. I chose the Desktop Search because there are a lot of areas in which you can multi-thread tasks effectively. After running the indexing and searching on a dual core machine, I found that the multi-threaded version ran faster than the single threaded version.
It was also tested on a single-core machine and the multi-threaded version performed similar to the single-threaded version or slower. This makes sense since single core processors handle threads as the processor becomes available. For long running threads, the other threads just wait until the first thread is complete.
I am still not convinced that the dual core processor is influencing consumers’ buying decisions; I am not sure if most consumers would even know or care what a dual core is. It is easy enough to say the dual core is faster than its predecessor however, most applications do not take advantage of the dual core architecture. General end-users will see the true benefits of multi-core processors when applications become multi-threaded. For example, I know a number of photographers will be ecstatic when Photoshop and Bridge are turbocharged by the dual core architecture and multi-threaded programming.
I also think this ad-hoc study would benefit with a true comparison. I would like to see how the Desktop Search application performed using an AMD Dual Core Opteron processor or Apple’s new Intel Dual Core processor with similar specifications that I have on my machine. I would analyze the results and compare each processor which would provide a more complete picture.
Michael Cassens
mcassens@3leaf.com
