![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Are we at an end for single core procssors?
- Thread starter selizo
- Start date
Single-core will still own the gaming department. Once DUAL core settles down and prices drop then people will buy them because a) they game pretty decently and b) they can do multiple things at a time. I think it will just be another option on the market, single-core is still going to thrive.
Yeah, Until AMD and Intel start matching dual core speeds with its single core. Single core will lead ahead in games, Well at least until Games support dual threads. Then I believe the FX will come aboard on Dualcore.. and Dualcore will be on top of gaming/multitasking? 
MD_Willington
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2004
- Messages
- 2,233
Dual core is all hype right now...
It's all about
right now...
Hell I'm still looking at single core socket A for now...
It's all about
right now...
Hell I'm still looking at single core socket A for now...
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
Socket A has some of the strangest processors I've ever seen, why would you want a 2.6GHz proceessor that only supports up to a 266MHz bus speed?
Saw it on newegg a while ago
Saw it on newegg a while ago
Unknown-One said:Socket A has some of the strangest processors I've ever seen, why would you want a 2.6GHz proceessor that only supports up to a 266MHz bus speed?
Saw it on newegg a while ago
Thats not HTT, its back when there was 'FSB' like intel has. 266 wasnt so bad, considering 400 was the most.
One thing that's commonly overlooked is that the second core will offload many of the background processes and OS stuff that a single core CPU will have to switch to constantly during a game. That alone makes up for quite a bit of the difference in clock speed.
Now that no longer easy gains can be made in performance by increasing clockspeed, parallel processing is the next logical step.
Parallel processing also fits perfectly with the multi-tasking OSs we've been using since a long time.
In addition to this, it also pulls x86 out of the mainstream market and moves it more into the high-end market (workstations, servers). Architectures like SPARC, MIPS, POWER and such have featured multi-core for a long time now, so in that sense x86 is playing catch-up.
(hmm.... quad-core Opteron...)
Parallel processing also fits perfectly with the multi-tasking OSs we've been using since a long time.
In addition to this, it also pulls x86 out of the mainstream market and moves it more into the high-end market (workstations, servers). Architectures like SPARC, MIPS, POWER and such have featured multi-core for a long time now, so in that sense x86 is playing catch-up.
(hmm.... quad-core Opteron...)
MD_Willington
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2004
- Messages
- 2,233
Well considering Intel quad pumps their FSB...Unknown-One said:Socket A has some of the strangest processors I've ever seen, why would you want a 2.6GHz proceessor that only supports up to a 266MHz bus speed?
Saw it on newegg a while ago
and no socket A cpu does 2.6GHz unless it is overclocked to do so...
I think that technology-wise, we are seeing the end for single-core processors. If not that, then the never-ending game of "Top This!" between Intel and AMD will be what "kills" the technology. (At this rate, I'm expecting nVidia and ATI to soon follow suit in the graphics department. ) I expect that we'll continue to see single-core processors for at least another 2-3 years. However, if/when the new BTX standard finally gets utilized, then I think we should start counting the days (or weeks, or months)....
) I expect that we'll continue to see single-core processors for at least another 2-3 years. However, if/when the new BTX standard finally gets utilized, then I think we should start counting the days (or weeks, or months)....(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this....)
Intel is currently working on the BTX technology (for, among other things, improved airflow to its processors) and I wouldn't be surprised if, by the time BTX is released to the public, Intel makes a dual-core processor for the BTX standard. (From what I've heard, AMD is going to wait and see if BTX takes off first.) Since the big hurdle -- making dual-core processors -- has been passed, and the fact that no one other than Intel is supporting BTX right now, this seems pretty feasible. But I don't know when it may (or even if it will) happen....
I mentioned BTX because I think that by the time that BTX becomes the standard (if it even comes out at all) dual-core processors will have been perfected to the point that they will replace the single-core processor in all but budget computers (most likely from Wal-Mart and/or Costco). As far as I know, however, we might hear that BTX gets dropped next week/month/year, and my comment then becomes moot. However, I honestly believe that the competition between AMD and Intel is going to be what kills the single-core processor as a viable option.
(Now multi-CPU configurations? I don't know but I think...
Originally posted by MD_Willington
It's all about
right now...
...but we'll probably see your beloved "quad-cores" before we see the BTX becomes standard.)
You're right that BTX and mainstream adoption of dual core CPUs will line up, but it's more coincidence then anything else. BTX does provide better airflow to the CPU, but that also benefits the higher-clocked single core CPUs as well. I thought I saw some BTX stuff already on the market... maybe I only saw it somewhere else...
Also, for video cards, we've been seeing the parallel revolution in cards for a few generations. The huge increase in number of pipelines is very much like multi-core CPUs. Sure, it's technically more like a super-scalar CPU, but the pipelines on a video card are pretty much independant of each other (they mostly only share memory bandwidth), so I kind of think of them as fully independant units. IMO (and that's all this is), I'd bet that we start to see a lot more video cards with multiple cores, however each core will be on a separate die (like the 1 card SLI setup that's out there). That way, the two cores won't compete for memory bandwidth. And of course, two of these cards in "SLI" mode can give 4 cores. I'd also be interested in whether next-gen PCIe will bring enough bandwidth for x1 slot video cards that can be strung together in a massive SLI setup. Interesting stuff.
Also, for video cards, we've been seeing the parallel revolution in cards for a few generations. The huge increase in number of pipelines is very much like multi-core CPUs. Sure, it's technically more like a super-scalar CPU, but the pipelines on a video card are pretty much independant of each other (they mostly only share memory bandwidth), so I kind of think of them as fully independant units. IMO (and that's all this is), I'd bet that we start to see a lot more video cards with multiple cores, however each core will be on a separate die (like the 1 card SLI setup that's out there). That way, the two cores won't compete for memory bandwidth. And of course, two of these cards in "SLI" mode can give 4 cores. I'd also be interested in whether next-gen PCIe will bring enough bandwidth for x1 slot video cards that can be strung together in a massive SLI setup. Interesting stuff.
Some points:tiraides said:
- the BTX spec has been available for around a year now.
- so far only OEMs have used BTX for some of their systems, no BTX mainboards are available outside this market.
- BTX was more or less Intel's attempt to deal with the failure that the Netburst (P4) architecture has turned out to be. The Pentium M has no need for more cooling than ATX, ITX or any other spec offers, since it only uses a fraction of the power a P4 CPU uses.
- It's highly unlikely that AMD will go with BTX, as the layout of the components makes it very difficult/impossible to route the traces between the memory banks and the CPU's on-die memory controller. You won't see dual-CPU, dual-core Opterons on BTX for this and other reasons as well.
- BTX cools the CPU better, yes, but at the cost of the rest of the system's components, shortening their lifespan (which is why OEMs might like it
).AMD has already announced quad-core Opterons, and BTX has a snowball's chance in hell to become the new standard
OK Elledan, you win...
*sighs and throws hands up*
... so I guess my opinion of Intel and AMD's oneupsmanship game killing the single cores a bunch of garbage as well?
----------
Edit: Don't answer that. I thought that I could emphasize my point with that idea and it ended up all FUBAR'd. I'll just get back on topic and be done with this.
----------
Like I said before, technologically speaking, there's not much more that can be done with single-core processors. But what I meant by the "competition" between AMD and Intel is that because each company is trying to prove that it is better than the other, and now that dual-core processors are all the rage, both companies are now going to focus on that technology, and whatever's left of single-core technology will eventually die of neglect.
*sighs and throws hands up*
... so I guess my opinion of Intel and AMD's oneupsmanship game killing the single cores a bunch of garbage as well?
----------
Edit: Don't answer that. I thought that I could emphasize my point with that idea and it ended up all FUBAR'd. I'll just get back on topic and be done with this.
----------
Like I said before, technologically speaking, there's not much more that can be done with single-core processors. But what I meant by the "competition" between AMD and Intel is that because each company is trying to prove that it is better than the other, and now that dual-core processors are all the rage, both companies are now going to focus on that technology, and whatever's left of single-core technology will eventually die of neglect.
Well, of coursetiraides said:
On Intel's roadmap there are already a number of dual-core CPUs based on the Pentium M, including for laptops (2nd/3th quarter 2006). Single core will become synonymous with 'budget' until it's no longer economically feasible to keep producing them and they're finally killed off.I can't wait to see what Intel is going to do with dual-core Pentium Ms after the current iteration of Pentium D(uct tape)s.
Elledan said:
I have to disagree with this point. Routing the signals is difficult no matter what the form factor. Sure, BTX isn't quite as "nice" as ATX, but it's not horrible. Besides, there are obvious ways around this issue, so maybe BTX won't be so bad in the future.