OK, this may be "old hat" to some folk, but I just came across quad core processors for the first time. Just can't believe it.... when will it end?
Quad core
Quad core processors...
-
Lieva
- Emerald Rider
- Posts: 5689
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:00 am
- Location: On the redundancy train to freedom :D
- Contact:
This is a great chip. Runs suprisingly cool at it's default frequency, only 35 degrees here, and overclocks like a dream.
Granted, there arn't many applications that use all 4 cores yet, but this chip has mind-blowing single-threaded performance.
Yeah it's expensive, but if you're looking for the best then this can't be beat.
preemtive a little.
Granted, there arn't many applications that use all 4 cores yet, but this chip has mind-blowing single-threaded performance.
Yeah it's expensive, but if you're looking for the best then this can't be beat.
preemtive a little.
Lievaordiea x Eldritch
Peonchants x Enchanter
Hibernia
Peonchants x Enchanter
Hibernia
Not sure what's so suprisingGandelf wrote:OK, this may be "old hat" to some folk, but I just came across quad core processors for the first time. Just can't believe it.... when will it end?
Quad core
OFFICER XEST - PROTECTING YOU AGAINST FORUM CRIME
Che Xefan, el presidente.
Che Xefan, el presidente.
Well Intel's core architecture CPUs are already vastly different to the old NetBurst CPUs.
Cell processors already have 8 to 16 cores and are a fundamentally different architecture but the cores in a Cell processor are generally specialised to certain tasks compared to the generic cores in the standard Intel/AMD CPUs.
It's not just cores though, different processors offer different hardware based threads per core also.
Showing off the amount of cores a CPU has is basically just a way the marketing departments dumb the technology down to make it sound impressive to the masses, and whilst it is it's not the full story of course. Also, unless an application is multithreaded then multiple cores are worthless, for a long while in Windows you weren't able to specify which processor should do what in multiprocessor systems which was a pain as you had to hope Windows would spread the load sensibly.
Too many cores are also useless of course (this is why I can't understand why Sony went Cell with the PS3) as there's only so much processing you can logically split off in a game, subsystems with low CPU requirements i.e. the input subsystem will sit quite happily alongside things like the audio subsystem and splitting them off to individual threads is a waste of time as you'll lose more time keeping your threads in sync and ensuring your code is thread safe than you'll earn by having them on seperate cores. Physics, Video, Game Logic (Including AI) are the killers, everything else can go on a single core so 4 cores is plenty for gaming. Where the Cell processor does come into it's own is for processing large amounts of data that can be split into individual chunks because you can just set each core off with a massive batch of data and let it do it's thing then it'll come back when it's done without it having to waste time making sure it's in sync with other cores, this makes Cell well suited to things such as number crunching of scientific data, cracking encryption/brute force password cracking and so forth.
To sum that up simply, CPUs aren't linear anymore, performance depends on what you want to do with your data and choosing the architecure best suited to that - remember that if you never use multithreaded applications then a dual core 4.0ghz machine isn't going to be any faster than a single core 4.0ghz machine even.
Cell processors already have 8 to 16 cores and are a fundamentally different architecture but the cores in a Cell processor are generally specialised to certain tasks compared to the generic cores in the standard Intel/AMD CPUs.
It's not just cores though, different processors offer different hardware based threads per core also.
Showing off the amount of cores a CPU has is basically just a way the marketing departments dumb the technology down to make it sound impressive to the masses, and whilst it is it's not the full story of course. Also, unless an application is multithreaded then multiple cores are worthless, for a long while in Windows you weren't able to specify which processor should do what in multiprocessor systems which was a pain as you had to hope Windows would spread the load sensibly.
Too many cores are also useless of course (this is why I can't understand why Sony went Cell with the PS3) as there's only so much processing you can logically split off in a game, subsystems with low CPU requirements i.e. the input subsystem will sit quite happily alongside things like the audio subsystem and splitting them off to individual threads is a waste of time as you'll lose more time keeping your threads in sync and ensuring your code is thread safe than you'll earn by having them on seperate cores. Physics, Video, Game Logic (Including AI) are the killers, everything else can go on a single core so 4 cores is plenty for gaming. Where the Cell processor does come into it's own is for processing large amounts of data that can be split into individual chunks because you can just set each core off with a massive batch of data and let it do it's thing then it'll come back when it's done without it having to waste time making sure it's in sync with other cores, this makes Cell well suited to things such as number crunching of scientific data, cracking encryption/brute force password cracking and so forth.
To sum that up simply, CPUs aren't linear anymore, performance depends on what you want to do with your data and choosing the architecure best suited to that - remember that if you never use multithreaded applications then a dual core 4.0ghz machine isn't going to be any faster than a single core 4.0ghz machine even.
OFFICER XEST - PROTECTING YOU AGAINST FORUM CRIME
Che Xefan, el presidente.
Che Xefan, el presidente.
It does allow you to use your email and browse the web at the same time as running your "proper app" thoughXest wrote: To sum that up simply, CPUs aren't linear anymore, performance depends on what you want to do with your data and choosing the architecure best suited to that - remember that if you never use multithreaded applications then a dual core 4.0ghz machine isn't going to be any faster than a single core 4.0ghz machine even.
Dual Core is still a big step up even for those only doing one thing at a time, the system is always doing something in the background. The speed of the cores isn't really an issue, just the fact that there are 2.
Most day-to-day users won't notice a jump from 2 cores though, certainly not until applications get rewrites to not only use, but almost require multi-cores.
Yeah I was referring more to business apps, many business still use single threaded systems. I should've probably clarified my point more, I was making it clear that more cores isn't necessary in every scenario in an attempt to strenghten my point that it's all about what data you're actually processing.Ovi wrote:It does allow you to use your email and browse the web at the same time as running your "proper app" though
Dual Core is still a big step up even for those only doing one thing at a time, the system is always doing something in the background. The speed of the cores isn't really an issue, just the fact that there are 2.
Most day-to-day users won't notice a jump from 2 cores though, certainly not until applications get rewrites to not only use, but almost require multi-cores.
OFFICER XEST - PROTECTING YOU AGAINST FORUM CRIME
Che Xefan, el presidente.
Che Xefan, el presidente.