Intel builds fastest chip yet - MSN Money
I want one of them instead :D
Guess its just down to the software engineers now, electronic engineers own :)
Intel builds fastest chip yet - MSN Money
I want one of them instead :D
Guess its just down to the software engineers now, electronic engineers own :)
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...
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
Originally Posted by NoPeace
so is IBM O.o and why would we need 80 cores? what happened to quantum computers.
Think about what this will do to future game systems...possible virtual reality simulations even.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
Reply With Quote