duck Quad core!

[Robert]

You must be registered to see links

I want one of them instead


Guess its just down to the software engineers now, electronic engineers own

 

[iNs@nE]

Pretty Good but they say it's gonna take 5 yrs to come out..

By then am sure some other company is gonna come with somethin better..
its always there...

 

[NoPeace]

Old news tbh. =P

And at the moment it's weaker then a C2D. Can't wait to see what it's like in the final product. Also AMD is in the works of a high core CPU also that can do graphics.

NoPeace - out

 

[themasher]

Also AMD is in the works of a high core CPU also that can do graphics.

so is IBM and why would we need 80 cores? what happened to quantum computers.

 

[Kyle12345]

Think about what this will do to future game systems...possible virtual reality simulations even.

 

[metalkobra]

i agree with the topic. but i somewhat agree with the same for 64 bit and dual core.

1. nobody is coding in 64-bit really

2. nobody is coding for dual core either.

=/ it all sux0rz right now.

 

[NoPeace]

so is IBM and why would we need 80 cores? what happened to quantum computers.

Quantum computers is just a different way of processing I/O's. And they will have high number of cores also.

And why would you need 80 cores? Simple. The cores are much more simple and wont perform as much as current cores. Also you can expect GPU and PPU's to be on the CPU. So you'll have tons of little cores doing tons of work at the same time.

Also look at the new DX10 video cards. They are not much different. The 8800GTX and x2800XTX has 128 Stream Processors and the 8800GTS has 96. And they are just mini cores that can do floating point math very fast. Hell the 8800's can be used to execute x86 instructions which is what 32-bit CPUs and 64-bit CPUs use to work with. So in fact you can say that DX10 video cards have more cores than that Intel CPU. Though video cards specialize mainly in FP math and not int math.

NoPeace - out

 

[username1]

Only certain computing tasks can be parallelised... and by that, I don't mean 'most of them'. Most others still need sequential execution.

I'd rather they build one ultrafast core instead of many slower ones.

 

[NoPeace]

Only certain computing tasks can be parallelised... and by that, I don't mean 'most of them'. Most others still need sequential execution.

I'd rather they build one ultrafast core instead of many slower ones.

True that most programs are sequential. But what you are forgetting is the fact that the computer just doesn't run one task at once. There's dozens of processes running on the computer at once and spreading them out over multiple cores will benefit heavly on performance.

Having each program run seperate cores is in some ways more benefictial then having tons of programs running off of one really fast core.

Look at how dual cores made computing much more easier especially in games. Sure most games are single threaded but having one core dedicated to the OS and programs while having another core just dedicated to the game impacts performa greatly as now there is little to no overhead for the game caused by programs like messengers and antiviruses.

Like wise with multicore CPU's and newer programs. Newer programs are starting to be written to use multiple cores. So haveing and 80 core CPU can be easily taken advantage of. Especially with OSs that are starting to better utilize multicores. Having each and every program run on their own dedicated core or cores will have a great performance boost as it'll lower the processeing headroom for CPU intensive programs a lot. That is as long as there's an OS that can manage the distribution of processes over the cores.

Hopefully the next Windows and Linux kernals can do it.

NoPeace - out

 

[username1]

What I'm saying is, why don't they focus on making a faster single core, and then multiply that by two or four? :smile:

 

[NoPeace]

What I'm saying is, why don't they focus on making a faster single core, and then multiply that by two or four? :smile:

Yeah that's what Intel did with the Core archecture.

A low clocked Core Solo blows away most higher clocked CPU's. Then with the Core Duo they added another core. The Core 2 Duo improved on the archecture to make it even more efficient and then added another 2 cores core the Core 2 Quads.

So yes they are making a single core vastly faster. Might not reflect it in hertz but they are highly efficient and can they can do more work pre cycle.

Hopefully with the next AMD's there'll be more efficiency and the Core 3's will be even more efficient.

Also you have Sony/IBM's Cell processor. The second revision of it is now yeilding 6ghz off a 65nm processor. Not to metion that CPU is 8-way.

Hopefully thoes move over to the desktop market sooner then latter. Would really put AMD and Intel to shame.

NoPeace - out

 

[Josh]

Thought quad had been out for ages? Atleast for servers o.0?

 

[NoPeace]

Thought quad had been out for ages? Atleast for servers o.0?

So obvious you don't read before posting. Spam is not appreciated here and I'll infarct you if you do it again.

NoPeace - out

 

[Mazo]

Thought quad had been out for ages? Atleast for servers o.0?

Not quite. Your thinking of quad CPU's not quad core. Servers would have four actual processors on four separate die whereas quad core is four on one die.

Don't be so hard on him NoPeace he just wants to learn like the rest of us.

 

[Josh]

So obvious you don't read before posting. Spam is not appreciated here and I'll infarct you if you do it again.

NoPeace - out

You don't have to be such a meanie nopeace, I don't like hardware, i don't build hardware and YES i did read the entire thing before posting.
Not everyone is as good as you think you are.

 

[Robert]

Yeah that's what Intel did with the Core archecture.

A low clocked Core Solo blows away most higher clocked CPU's. Then with the Core Duo they added another core. The Core 2 Duo improved on the archecture to make it even more efficient and then added another 2 cores core the Core 2 Quads.

So yes they are making a single core vastly faster. Might not reflect it in hertz but they are highly efficient and can they can do more work pre cycle.

Hopefully with the next AMD's there'll be more efficiency and the Core 3's will be even more efficient.

Also you have Sony/IBM's Cell processor. The second revision of it is now yeilding 6ghz off a 65nm processor. Not to metion that CPU is 8-way.

Hopefully thoes move over to the desktop market sooner then latter. Would really put AMD and Intel to shame.

NoPeace - out

Cells have next to no support. Sure they are good for super computers. i hear atleast one is being refitted with them. But for the general market i cant see them taking off. They have only just started giving them out to universitys for them to start developing stuff for them, by the time the cell is truely ready to be launched intel and AMD will have better kit...

Which makes sense considering sony is too busy wasting money on the PS and rootkits to splash it at the engineers. Intel and AMD spend billions to keep up with moores law, i cant see sony being as dedicated.

 

[NoPeace]

Not quite. Your thinking of quad CPU's not quad core. Servers would have four actual processors on four separate die whereas quad core is four on one die.

Don't be so hard on him NoPeace he just wants to learn like the rest of us.

Actually... The typical quad core CPU is 2x dual cores. And now it's becomming a simple quad core. =P

A 4s board is to expensive and most of the quad core servers out there are 2x duals because of it.

And Josh is just a spammer. He goes around spamming at everything he can. And he's been a mod and knows the rules so if he doesn't want to follow them then he has no excueses for not being infracted.

You don't have to be such a meanie nopeace, I don't like hardware, i don't build hardware and YES i did read the entire thing before posting.
Not everyone is as good as you think you are.

If you bother to read the article in teh first post then you would know this is not about quad cores but about multi core CPU's that will come out in teh future.

Thus your comment about Quad core is only revelent to the title which actually has no real revelance to the subject at hand.

Never he less. What you posted has no revelance to the topic and thus it is spam. And now stop aruging about it.

Cells have next to no support. Sure they are good for super computers. i hear atleast one is being refitted with them. But for the general market i cant see them taking off. They have only just started giving them out to universitys for them to start developing stuff for them, by the time the cell is truely ready to be launched intel and AMD will have better kit...

Actually in a way they are already in the desktop market. The PS3 can have Linux installed on it easily.

And yes the power of it is pretty amazing but Sony doesn't want to help people to develop software for it at the moment.

It's a very power and complex CPU but when it's utilized it's going to amazingly fast and efficient.

If the PS3 had more then 256 of RAM I would so pick up a second one for a linux box. Just that it limits it performance a lot at them moment.

And yes Intel and AMD will have somethign to compete against the current Cells which run at 3.2ghz. The 45nm Intel's will be right on part with it.

But IBM/Sony has just finished their revision of the Cell that can do 6ghz on smaller die.

Now with a 8-way CPU running that fast which is already efficient, there isn't much to stop it. Even if it takes a year to hit mainstream computers. What will Intel have out then? Lucky the second batch of 45nm's and forget about AMD. They'll be still perfecting their 65nm K9's. It'll take AMD another year to hit the 45nm and by then you'll have the Cell shrunk down to that size and probably doing 10+ghz and Intel's 16-way chips should be hitting there.

Never the less AMD and Intel are going to have a fight on their hands in a year or so. And this isn't including nVidia. Their GPUs are not able to do x86 instructions which is what CPUs are. And they are 10s of times faster then a CPU. Once they can scale the chips down to CPU power levels it'll be a whole new league of CPU processing.

Which makes sense considering sony is too busy wasting money on the PS and rootkits to splash it at the engineers. Intel and AMD spend billions to keep up with moores law, i cant see sony being as dedicated.

Actually... The reason why the Cell is so hard to use is because Sony isn't putting time into helping the engineers.

Then again they are spending the time making the chip even better. Their orginal goal was to have a 12 teraflop CPU by 2007-2009. And current Cell can do a single tera. Not to metion the new revision can do well over 1 if not 2. Much lower then what they was planning but hell they are trying to hit it. Wouldn't shock me if they have them in 2009.

NoPeace - out