6 core Thuban CPU from AMD?

P

ProfessorKaos64

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
1,256
http://www.techspot.com/news/38046-AMDs-sixcore-Thuban-CPU-to-launch-April-26.html

More cores doesn't necessarily mean more speed right? Doing stuff faster? How, I sure hope most are aware how little software is mutl threaded unless you hit a professional level of multimedia design/programming/rendering etc. Having 6 cores at 2.5 ghz isnt going to blow your mind when you already have 4 doing the same. Hell, I could barely tell the diff between my 3.00 ghz core 2 quad over my 2.5 ghz core 2 before it. yes there are some exceptions, but for the most part its a damn pissing contest, and I hope most get that. Yes, true that architecture has been upgraded on both, and in the Intel field we see vast improvements on bus path speeds with QPI etc, but is it laods faster than a good ol fast Core 2, or Core 2 Quad? I'm sorry, but 6 cores doesn't make your porn load faster. When the time comes that I NEED 6 cores, and the software IS* there to use them, then I will agree whole heartedly. Faster does not necessarily mean more cores, clock speed per core is pretty much flat lining unless you over clock, and until we reach the "holy grail" of optic computing, then I don't see it going much higher.Until then its consumer hype and "who's got the bigger wang" argument.

What I want to know from [H] readers, is with speed at a fair constant, and just more core's piling up with some architecture improvements, is a 6 core system going to wow you over a 4 core or fast 2 core when theres not much to take advantage of it?
 
i wonder the same thing myself. i'm going to hang back and watch the reviews and forums. i've just decided to upgrade my mobo to an 890gx,and keep runnin my 720x3 till we see more on this. i think its going to be overkill for about 90% of users. thats just my opinion.
 
Raw speed will always be better than more cores when it comes to single applications. I really do prefer to lock my applications to their own individual cores, and this is where my c2d really lets me down.
 
i am personally lookinga t getting the X6 only because i do ALOT of multi tasking, and my dual core cant do much(cant be backign up media, playing games, watching movies.....at the same time)......otherwise, there isnt much of a need for more than 4 cores other than the *because i can* (fyi i fit in that group when i have the cash to blow)



also....there is a 4 page long thread on this topic already....or this question was adressed....
 
nonameo said:
It is to a point. I think 3 cores is the optimum right now. I wish that intel would come out with a core i series with 3 cores.
Click to expand...

intel will never do it.. and actually only the i5 and i7's can be run in a tri-core setup.. lga-775 never could be done that way since even the quad cores were actually 2 dual cores on a single chip.. and really there is nothing thats makes tri cores better then dual or quad's.. since all phenom II's can basically be overclocked to the same speeds which thus makes them all equal in multi threaded and single threaded applications..
 
nonameo said:
It is to a point. I think 3 cores is the optimum right now. I wish that intel would come out with a core i series with 3 cores.
Click to expand...

The only reason AMD released a 3 core chips is to make the best use of bad chips. Same thing goes for the dual-core Phenom IIs. Intel has a superb manufacturing process, second to none, and their yields aren't bad enough that they have a large number of chips that can't run as quads.
 
SicKlown42012 said:
The only reason AMD released a 3 core chips is to make the best use of bad chips. Same thing goes for the dual-core Phenom IIs. Intel has a superb manufacturing process, second to none, and their yields aren't bad enough that they have a large number of chips that can't run as quads.
Click to expand...

at the beginning yet it has its purpose to get rid of bad chips.. but after the first 2-3 months most of the yield problems are gone and they are actually selling perfectly working quad core processors with cores disabled.. but at the same time it benefits them because they control the whole upgrade path.. for the simple OEM market.. low end market, mid, and some what high end.. where as intel you have oem mid and high end market.. and even the i3's you can really say are the low end market because the platforms still cost to much..
 
When I went from Intel to AMD, I switched from a Q6600 @ 3.2 to a Phenom X2 550 @ 3.7 and I didn't notice much of a difference. If anything, stuff loaded faster because of the increased speed per core.

6 cores seems useless for a regular consumer. Servers and multimedia design/programming/rendering apps are the only application where a 6 core CPU is useful.
 
The main thing I like about this is the Turbo Boost like feature. Glad to see AMD is finally adding it to their CPUs now.

Hope AMD will come out with some quad cores with this Turbo Boost feature, since I think 6 cores might be overkill for my needs.
 
I don't need a faster CPU for anything that is not CPU intensive but I need more cores for things that are CPU intensive because most of them are already multi threaded like video encoding and CAD. Turbo function is a huge plus for me because the CPU can be faster when a single threaded application is run.
 
The reason why said single threaded because I was thinking of how many applications that you run at the same time and still benefit from this.
 
ProfessorKaos64 said:
What I want to know from [H] readers, is with speed at a fair constant, and just more core's piling up with some architecture improvements, is a 6 core system going to wow you over a 4 core or fast 2 core when theres not much to take advantage of it?
Click to expand...

In a word, "No."
 
thesmokingman said:
This whole multicore business is just smoke and mirrors!
Click to expand...

Not quite. Hardware is always ahead of software. Professional applications already take advantage of extra cores. When multi core machine are main stream (becoming now) you will see most all new versions of software taking advantage of it.
The main reason I purchased a Phenom x4 was MainConcept MPEG2 rendering.
The render time for a video when from hours to minutes.
It was really neat to start the render and go grab a soda and sandwich and find it finished when I got back. Before it was start the render, turn the lights out and go to bed. ;)
 
I'd use it for converting video and all that. I hope they focus on passing 4ghz already.
 
Just seem this at Guru3d their calling these cpu's the Phenom ll x6 1000-series and have massive performance headroom.News a couple days old
 
legoman666 said:
When I went from Intel to AMD, I switched from a Q6600 @ 3.2 to a Phenom X2 550 @ 3.7 and I didn't notice much of a difference. If anything, stuff loaded faster because of the increased speed per core.

6 cores seems useless for a regular consumer. Servers and multimedia design/programming/rendering apps are the only application where a 6 core CPU is useful.
Click to expand...

you couldn't get any more out of your Q6600?
 
My question is: are there really that many programs that will utilize all 6 cores? The main problem with Quad-cores (and up) is that they don't perform the best in single-threaded apps, so anyone who gets a thuban should be expecting to use it in intensive multi-threaded programs.
 
From what i seen:

ETW, Grid, Farcry2, GTA IV all show small increases

And quite a lot of professional software (especialy graphics oriented)

Hmm anyway if the $200 X6 can go to 3.8 and is faster clock per clock when compared to Phenom II I'm interested in upgrading my Q6600 to it (especially when intel takes it time to deliver 32nm quads)
 
6 cores can't get here fast enough. I have a vm cluster I do testing on that each node has a 45w dual core & 8G ram. Each one is _trying_ to handle 12vm's or so with 8G ram (board max). I'd love to drop a 6 core in there and perhaps my cpu load wouldn't average 70%+ around the clock.

If you can't use as many cores as people throw at you, you don't play with computers enough :)
 
Robstar said:
6 cores can't get here fast enough. I have a vm cluster I do testing on that each node has a 45w dual core & 8G ram. Each one is _trying_ to handle 12vm's or so with 8G ram (board max). I'd love to drop a 6 core in there and perhaps my cpu load wouldn't average 70%+ around the clock.

If you can't use as many cores as people throw at you, you don't play with computers enough :)
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!!
 
At some point you reach saturation as to what a single computer user can do. That said a quad core can offer a little better experience than a dual core because it can further offload the OS processes to background cores and leave 2 cores for you to use for yourself.

I'm just not convinced until software matures that a standard computer use will make use of more than 4.

Now my ESX farm wants a a few 12 core Opterons. ;-)
 
Michaelius said:
From what i seen:

ETW, Grid, Farcry2, GTA IV all show small increases

And quite a lot of professional software (especialy graphics oriented)

Hmm anyway if the $200 X6 can go to 3.8 and is faster clock per clock when compared to Phenom II I'm interested in upgrading my Q6600 to it (especially when intel takes it time to deliver 32nm quads)
Click to expand...

Can you list a web site so I can have a look.
 
I can barely manage to use all of my cores now, why would I get an additional 2 cores..
 
 
Last edited:
I don't know there's some kind of stupid censorship filter that changes domain name into +++++++++.
If you want to chack them you need to put " ++++++++s " in those links instead of plusses.
 
Funny so many of you are so narrow minded. Bottom line is that if you can't, or think you can't use 6 cores then save your money and buy a quad. The 6 core processors are for people that want and can use more. I fold and can definitely take advantage of 6 cores. I'll probably snag one once the rush slows down and prices stabilize.
 
Useful. I'm a student majoring in graphic design, and I can see that my 3D rendering time will be cut... More core is always good. Building a rendering cluster is expensive, so a $300 processor overclocked to 4Ghz is a lot cheaper than building four Athlon II X4s in a cluster.
 
Nice thing those CPUs have is something called TurboCore. According to what AMD was showing, that If the application uses only 2 of 6 cores, then the computing power is transferred from non-used cores into the working ones. But I need to see it not on paper and PR charts but in working benchmarks
 
Michaelius said:
I don't know there's some kind of stupid censorship filter that changes domain name into +++++++++.
If you want to chack them you need to put " ++++++++s " in those links instead of plusses.
Click to expand...


yup because they are blocked for a reason usually.. untrusted sites or scam sites mostly..


OvrrDrive said:
Funny so many of you are so narrow minded. Bottom line is that if you can't, or think you can't use 6 cores then save your money and buy a quad. The 6 core processors are for people that want and can use more. I fold and can definitely take advantage of 6 cores. I'll probably snag one once the rush slows down and prices stabilize.
Click to expand...


couldnt agree more.. need more folding POWAH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top