Multicores just a compensation?

N

Nemik8800

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
252
I honestly cant believe CPU's have been in the same range of MHz for so long. I really must say I expected a CPU over 5GHz when at this time when I bought my 2GHz dell in 2001-2. Are multi cores just a compensation for technology running short? The answer I am thinking is maybe with the introduction of multi cores we don't need a higher MHz. But then why would people go to such extreme limits to over clock?
 
Yes, processors have pretty much hit a clockspeed limit. It just isn't very efficient to go faster than current clock speeds. That is why the shift has been made from emphasizing clockspeed to highlighting and improving efficiency. With that in mind, the best way to scale up processor performance is to produce multicore cpus at current clocks with more efficient architecture.

Don't be confused though, a single core 2Ghz chip from 2001 (especially intel) is not equal to our modern 2Ghz wonders.
 
I am personally a fan of efficiency over big numbers. I'd consider a "5Ghz CPU" to be pretty wasteful if it was based on some kind of previous generation poor efficiency design. I'd rather see a processor that outdoes the previous generation through good design, not MORE POWERRRR! The Core 2 Duo design is a prime example of this. A C2D will utterly destroy a P4 of much higher clock speed in just about everything and do it with less power, less heat, and more headroom. Now they need a CPU that does the same thing to a C2D.
 
Actually multi core race will be over soon, next we will have fusion, where different chips doing different things will be packed together.
 
I honestly cant believe CPU's have been in the same range of MHz for so long.
Click to expand...

It is because new architectures are much better, so they don't need a 5ghz processor. There is a much bigger incentive to be able to do more with less. If anything, that is probably the current competition between AMD and Intel. One manufacturer goes "Hey, look how awesome our processor is even at 2.0ghz!" Then the other tries to beat them out by going, "Yeah, well ours is now better than yours and it only runs at 1.8ghz!"
 
ShePearl said:
That's probably what Intel/AMD want you to think.
The real stuff behind... I don't know...
Click to expand...

would you rather have a 5GHz Pentium4 or a 3GHz Core2 (assume it was single core)? :rolleyes:

It is not just about clocks speed you would think people had learned this a long time ago :rolleyes:
 
there was a good video up on youtube featuring 1 of the intel engineers talking about the multicore strategy

the jist:

a 4ghz processor uses like 2x as much power as 2 2ghz cores.

we can still scale up, obviously we can if we have amateur overclockers hitting 5ghz in their bedrooms. the wall is close, but we havent hit it yet.

but we will.

so in the interest of looking ahead and not pouring money into design routes that are doomed from the start, companies have started fresh with relatively low-clocked multicores with betters IPCs.

it isnt the clockspeed race anymore, but 2x the core can potentially rival 2x the clockspeed (as we become more efficient at parallel/concurrent programming), but it'll do it uses far less power.

for shits and giggles, IBM demo'd a processors doing something like 300ghz a while back
 
While the knee jerk reaction is to point out that the Core2 Duo and Core2 Quad series do a lot more calculations PER CYCLE than a pentium4, and that is the biggest reason why they are more powerful, I think what the OP was getting at was something entirely different.

I guess the best way to answer that would be to theorize about how powerful a 4GHZ Core Solo processor would be in comparison to a 2GHZ Core 2 Duo. The C2D is going to have several advantages especially in a notebook, but would the performance be comparable, or would it not?

I'm not enough of a gearhead to answer that question.

But keep something in mind, I'm sure we'll eventually see 4GHZ C2D processors.
 
Well servers and other computing devices have used multiple processors for years and years. Have they just been compensating? ;)
 
One simple way of looking at it is lets say CPU A could execute 1 instruction per clock cycle, and CPU B could execute 4 instruction per clock cycle.

That means, to execute lets say 4gigs of instruction in one second, CPU need to run at 4GHz while CPU B can do the same at 1GHz. Clock CPU B at 2GHz and it's already 2x faster than CPU A while running at half it's frequency.

Of course that's not exactly what's going on in today CPU, but just a simple idea that today's CPU improve in terms of efficiency where they make more out of each clock cycle and keep power consumption down.

Even one single core of C2D is faster than the fastest P4 overclock in the most insane manner. And C2D can do it all with just one simple HSF
Don't want to run a liquid nitrogen cooling and a nuclear reactor to power my CPU :D

Multicore is for multi threading application, such as Crysis. You could get almost 2x performance out of one same architecture
 
Nemik8800 said:
I honestly cant believe CPU's have been in the same range of MHz for so long. I really must say I expected a CPU over 5GHz when at this time when I bought my 2GHz dell in 2001-2. Are multi cores just a compensation for technology running short? The answer I am thinking is maybe with the introduction of multi cores we don't need a higher MHz. But then why would people go to such extreme limits to over clock?
Click to expand...

You do realise a 3GHz C2D is the rough equivalent of a 6GHz Pentium D... :rolleyes:

If you want pure clockspeed I hear the 65nm Cedar Mill Pentiums overclock to 5GHz+ pretty easily... perhaps you should exchange that for your C2D. ;)
 
Multi cores opened up a whole new market to squeeze where there could be tons more variations of the same basic architecture.
Think about what we use our computers for:

Desktop stuff: Would work fine with a proc from 2002

Games: Mostly single core despite all the claims that come up every year More MHZ!

Video Encoding / other highly parallel stuff: Does benefit but ohwell. How much does the average person do this? The people who really wanted to do this could have built multi chip boards.... So some fringe users save a few bucks while the rest of us get milked.

My conclusion: Yeah we really haven't come very far lately. Eventually when all the software catches up it could be worth it but who knows when that will be. Its been years and it still isn't happening. At the moment dual core is "nice" and quad core is only helpful for limited applications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top