I am always 'wowed' when it comes to how quickly computer technology progresses. 10 cores? 20 threads of processing power? I just got my Quad core...
- Status
I am always 'wowed' when it comes to how quickly computer technology progresses. 10 cores? 20 threads of processing power? I just got my Quad core...
I just bought this thing 2 weeks ago, I've already gone through a virus scare and now it's out dated, great just great.
It's hard to keep up. This announcement was Feb 5.
16- and 48-core monster chips on tap at next week's ISSCC
I don't even try to keep up. When my computers get slow from OS bloat, I start looking. When I can't run the latest OS that I would like, I upgrade. My laptop is an intel dual core (Less than a year old) bought on sale. I have a desktop that I built that is still running an AMD X2 4400+ (old CPU). I recently bought an AGP HD 3850 video card on Ebay (fastest for that platform) to max out gaming frame rate.
Call me frugal or cheap. It still does the job and I would have to gut it and spend $500 or more to bring it into the 2011 world. Not!
16- and 48-core monster chips on tap at next week's ISSCC
I don't even try to keep up. When my computers get slow from OS bloat, I start looking. When I can't run the latest OS that I would like, I upgrade. My laptop is an intel dual core (Less than a year old) bought on sale. I have a desktop that I built that is still running an AMD X2 4400+ (old CPU). I recently bought an AGP HD 3850 video card on Ebay (fastest for that platform) to max out gaming frame rate.
Call me frugal or cheap. It still does the job and I would have to gut it and spend $500 or more to bring it into the 2011 world. Not!
Last edited:
What's great about anything over 2 cores is that it is useless. All programs are made for dual core chips. They have a 10 core chip with hyperthreading its theoretically 20 cores but not in actuality.
Specs are meaningless. All that matters is if your device does what you want it to do.
Exactly. Gamers drive the home consumer market. People with heavy business applications such as servers and scientific number crunching are heavy purchasers of the new stuff.
In most of the computer mags, there's a regular article topic where the identify the "sweet spot" in hardware price versus performance. It's always just short of the high end of the curve at a point where last years chips are being sold at attractive prices.
My board is an AMD socket 939 , so any way I go I have to change the motherboard. I decided to ramp up to the max the board can support by installing the fastest video card and I'm looking for an Ebay deal on a cheap (old) cpu to go with it. It would cost me about $500 to replace the motherboard, video card, and memory to go to a newer Intel CPU and the only game I play these days is Halo online. I spend more time on the laptop, anyway, so it's not on the top of the list these days to update the desktop.
There are games that perform better on quad core machines, but for the most part you don't get a significant improvement of performance. Gamers are a piece of the consumer market, they are not the sole driving force. Multiple cores are useful in certain multimedia applications, compiling, etc. It is absolutely false that anything over 2 cores is unnecessary, I have several applications that can max out my i7 easily. Modern operating systems will set affinity for single threaded applications, spreading the load across the available cores. Also newer CPU's will throttle unused cores to essentially overclock cores that are being heavily used.
Am I a typical case, no, but as the hardware becomes more common software writers will utilize it more.
As for the article, in the enterprise world servers need all that hardware. Even cheap servers (5k) can come with 2 quad core Xeons for 16 threads.
Am I a typical case, no, but as the hardware becomes more common software writers will utilize it more.
As for the article, in the enterprise world servers need all that hardware. Even cheap servers (5k) can come with 2 quad core Xeons for 16 threads.
Agreed. If you have a penchant for some of the shared CPU number crunching applications like the search for the pi limit or the SETI project, more cores are better, especially if your OS notices they are there. Past the dual core level, video and ping times are king. Frames per second is tied to the CPU, but not a problem for most people who build gaming machines. Video is probably the best upgrade, once you have sufficient ram and CPU speed. I read a lot of forum posts where people talk about buying a high dollar video card and only getting 2-5 frames a second more with their previous generation CPU. Or people who just bought a $500 CPU and still have only 1 gig of ram and see little difference in frame rate. Balance is key.
We are currently at the limit of propagation in silicon. Even overclocked machines quickly reach a limit without water cooling.
We are currently at the limit of propagation in silicon. Even overclocked machines quickly reach a limit without water cooling.
Last edited:
This is the most expensive cpu right now on the market. It has 6 cores. Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.33GHz 6 x 256KB L2 Cache 12MB L3 Cache LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80613I7980X
you dont really stand to gain anything from upgrading from 4 cores to 6, from dual to quad theres alot of difference, but not between 4 and 6, and for those who say quad cores dont make much difference, play a sandbox game like fallout on a dual and then a quad and come back haha
World Community Grid - use the extra unused cpu cycles to help cure cancer and the like.
P.S. Those are SERVER processors folks, although I understand the desktop "trickle down" theory.
Yes, mainly because you also need software that is well multithreaded (e.g. written to be aware of and able to take full advantage of the additional cores). Hyperthreading tech has also made a return in newer high end Intel CPUs which is another virtual core inside each physical core but again most mainstream and consumer software can't see and use them. Also requires more voltage which creates more heat. Games are slowly becoming more multithreaded but still lag much further behind than you would think generally, considering the computing power they require to run well at high quality.
Last edited:
Calculating the bottlenecks in the various subsystems of even a home cpu upgrade is beyond the ability or understanding of most users. There are plenty of websites such as tomshardware.com that run performance tests and catalog them. It's nice to find a benchmark file on the systems you considering building with the same components.
If you shop the prices, the sweet spot isn't hard to find or afford. OTOH, the cutting edge of tech is never even close to the sweet spot, either.
If you shop the prices, the sweet spot isn't hard to find or afford. OTOH, the cutting edge of tech is never even close to the sweet spot, either.
Last edited:
I post on overclock.net I built my computer from scratch. Did watercooling and everything. It's a pretty pimped out rig. I scored very high on benchmrks. I sort of want to trade my E8600 for Q9550 for all the cache. I don't mean to toot my horn or nothing but I was ranked number 1 in the game I played when I played. Very popular game part of a very popular guild who now play WoW and are in the top 20 ranks in the world. I have no doubt that I would do well in WoW but it's just not fun for me anymore.
I have box here at the house that is running an Intel I7 5667 Xeon chip (hex core with hyper threading), I also have one of the new I7 2600k (quad core with hyper threading), the newer architechture is so much more efficient at just about everything. These newer chips are impressive. Anyone that is considering a new computer would be wise to check out the Sandy Bridge setups that are out now. Priced reasonably and perform like crazy
I've got a quad core 2.93ghz i7 workstation, which is essentially 8 cores, with the right software. I've also got an 11.6" MacBook Air, which is equipped with a 1.4ghz dual-core CPU. The workstation currently has standard HHDs, and the MacBook Air has an SSD. For 90% of the stuff I do (Photoshop, MS Office, Web, Flash, etc.), my MacBook Air blows the desktop away. With the SSD, it's just snappy and responsive. The thing wakes up and is online, after sleeping, in about two seconds. And I can honestly say that there's rarely a time when I've thought "I wish my 1.4ghz CPU was faster. The fact is that most of the computers we have today are plenty fast enough to do what we need to do. If anything, today's desktop computers are I/O, and not CPU-bound. So, getting a fast SSD will make a big difference.
Having said that, there are times when a faster processor does make a big difference. I rip a lot of video and audio, and my little MacBook Air is ill-equipped for that sort of thing. While converting a Blu-Ray movie might take my quad/eight core i7 10 minutes, it could take my little MacBook Air several hours.
10 cores is interesting for servers, especially blades. If it's power/heat efficient, it can help reduce the power consumption and footprint for datacenters. However, that sort of system really requires a fast bus & I/O, to keep up. We may be a decade away of getting there with today's desktops. Besides, the software will have to be writen to take advantage of it. On the server side, especially with virtuialization, that's pretty much here today. On the desktop side, no idea when.
Having said that, there are times when a faster processor does make a big difference. I rip a lot of video and audio, and my little MacBook Air is ill-equipped for that sort of thing. While converting a Blu-Ray movie might take my quad/eight core i7 10 minutes, it could take my little MacBook Air several hours.
10 cores is interesting for servers, especially blades. If it's power/heat efficient, it can help reduce the power consumption and footprint for datacenters. However, that sort of system really requires a fast bus & I/O, to keep up. We may be a decade away of getting there with today's desktops. Besides, the software will have to be writen to take advantage of it. On the server side, especially with virtuialization, that's pretty much here today. On the desktop side, no idea when.
- Status