-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
12 Core AMD Processors
- Thread starter sprognak
- Start date
Indeed, but if you break down a program into tasks which can run happily in parallel (IE a multithreaded application), it can make use of as many CPU cores, as the program has threads.
Many games are coded so that on current hardware they run like a slideshow. They have "options" so you can disable features which are too demanding for your hardware. If hypothetically a games 3d engine was split into 20 threads, on a computer with a single 1000GHZ (yeah im exaggerating here) processor, all threads would be assigned to the processor and due to its extreme performance it would work just fine. Then take the same program to a computer with 20 cores all running at 50GHZ, and performance should be comparible, assuming the workload is balanced between all the threads. (In the real world its more common for 1 or 2 threads to need much more cpu time, but I am suggesting a purely hypothetical 3d engine with perfect thread scaling).
Run the same game on a quad core 2.66Ghz cpu, and no doubt some options would have to be lowered, no more "real life" physics, or whatever
Once a developer comes out with a properly balanced multithreaded 3d engine there would be a lot easier to scale it from 1 core to 2 cores, to 200 cores. And its a lot easier to design the hardware for multicores than a single ultrafast core. Graphics cards are a prime example of this. Look at the 8800GTX, 128 stream processors to deal with the workload. It would be a far harder to design a single stream processor fast enough to timeslice itself to deal with the same workload.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
you make it sound as everyone only either plays games or runs servers? btw supcom uses 4 cores really well on my pc
12 cores better multitasking
You will really be able to play games without any stutter while doing batch encoding,ray traced anim, Folding@home ect...
people said things like this about dual core and quad core, i think that better hardware generally makes programmers make less efficient software and hence speed isnt increased, the 'feel' is the same.
This is generally the way things have been for years!
And it also goes a long way to explain why we Atari and Amiga users get slagged off but yet we still do most tasks close to the same speed as PCs do...Some times fater than a PC does and this is mostly down to the fact that PC software is written so badly and by lazy programmers, while the other platforms write very efficient code, and truly get the most out of their machines.
Sure, the PC has the raw power but generally, PCs are no faster these days than they were 10 years ago.
No, it will only give them big ideas to make the code even more sloppy, and more reliant on those cores.
I mean, come on, look at the specs needed just to run the O/S ????
Its not like the O/S ( And I am not pointing the finger at anything in particular because they are all as bas as each other these days ) can truthfully justify needing as much RAM and HD space as it takes now is there?
No, more power will give us plenty of benefits for sure, but the core will only get sloppier and sloppier. Its been doing that for years and nothing is going to change that other than sacking the farts who write this dire code and getting some real programmers in, instead... Demo coders, Atari, Amiga and hey, the 8 bit computers all got pushed beyond what we ever expected them to, but the PC never really does.
I mean, come on, look at the specs needed just to run the O/S ????
Its not like the O/S ( And I am not pointing the finger at anything in particular because they are all as bas as each other these days ) can truthfully justify needing as much RAM and HD space as it takes now is there?
No, more power will give us plenty of benefits for sure, but the core will only get sloppier and sloppier. Its been doing that for years and nothing is going to change that other than sacking the farts who write this dire code and getting some real programmers in, instead... Demo coders, Atari, Amiga and hey, the 8 bit computers all got pushed beyond what we ever expected them to, but the PC never really does.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 1,006
- Location
- London
The source engine (not quite finished yet, buggy) and unreal engine 3 allready have technology available to use any number of cores. This could easily be the way forward.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
As opposed to what ? more reliant on clock speed ? its the same either way.
No matter what happens it can never be completely optimized because of the nature of the platform, the systems you mention can't be upgraded by sticking in another CPU!
I don't understand why people are against this kind of thing. It is what the industry feels is best for progression, and surely as people who are supposed to like PC hardware we should be happy for that progression ?
the big money is in opterons, be it for servers or for super computers.
if amd are offering server builder X 12 cores at 2ghz in 1 socket package. and intel offer 6 cores at 4ghz (im treating the cpu;s as having identical ipc, i know they dont so if it really bugs you apply a fudge factor). its purely a price and other features fight because in these environments, they really can use all the cores.
and right now for multi socket applications HT3 offers a lot... LOT.
and from an overclocking point of view. 12 cores. each with independant multiplier control for the BE? i smell 12 chances of getting a screaming good core for using on single threadded aps, and 6 chances of getting 2 screaming cores for dual threadded.. who cares about the other cores. if all they do is check e-mail run em at 800mhz and save the load on the fets and the cooling for the other more used cores.
and if they have 2 6 core dies they could surely have 4 64 bit memory controlers available. eg, quad ram if they implement it / the socet supports it. with each die having direct access to dual chan and via ht3 another 2 chans.
if amd are offering server builder X 12 cores at 2ghz in 1 socket package. and intel offer 6 cores at 4ghz (im treating the cpu;s as having identical ipc, i know they dont so if it really bugs you apply a fudge factor). its purely a price and other features fight because in these environments, they really can use all the cores.
and right now for multi socket applications HT3 offers a lot... LOT.
and from an overclocking point of view. 12 cores. each with independant multiplier control for the BE? i smell 12 chances of getting a screaming good core for using on single threadded aps, and 6 chances of getting 2 screaming cores for dual threadded.. who cares about the other cores. if all they do is check e-mail run em at 800mhz and save the load on the fets and the cooling for the other more used cores.
and if they have 2 6 core dies they could surely have 4 64 bit memory controlers available. eg, quad ram if they implement it / the socet supports it. with each die having direct access to dual chan and via ht3 another 2 chans.
So, my Falcon which started life as a 16Mhz 68030 CPU and is currently now a 66Mhz 68060 thats clocked at 90Mhz cannot be upgraded?
The Atari and the Amiga are both very upgradeable computer systems, each with a fairly large number of clones.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
The number of sockets is important within the enterprise as a lot of software is licensed by sockets not cores. For example, a single socket 12cpu AMD server would be very attractive for database serving as Oracle Standard Edition treats that as a single license and four servers could then be combined into a Real Application Cluster with huge performance but also hardware resilience.