QUAD CORE MY .....

Status
Not open for further replies.
(cf)Eclipse said:
even then.. a 70% boost isn't awesome for a 100% boost in theoretical ability

anyhow, for those who are saying that they won't be able to make an 80 core chip without it being too big, hot, whatever. the solution is REALLY simple. processors today are really bloated. i mean REALLY bloated.. ;)
drop it down to the bare essentials, and 80 cores will easily fit within a normal sized die at 32nm, which is the process size we will most likely be at in 5 years ;)
Click to expand...


Really depends on what sort of hardware you want on each core. Having more than one execution unit wouldn't make much sense, since you're already massively parallel anyway.

I think the reason we saw that demo on socket 7 was because the Pentium chips only had one execution unit IIRC, and they made a massive grid of oldschool P5's. I may be entirely wrong :)
 
I have a feeling they are just throwing buzzwords around and the CPU will have 80 FPUs with extra hardware to manage them... I don't think every single "core" will actually have registers and cache. Either way, a trillion floating point operations in one second boggles the mind. Just imagine what kind of power gaming developers will harness with multiple processing units (CPU,GPU,PPU) capable of a terraflop.. I think gamers can rejoice.
 
deeznuts said:
SDRAM yes. IDE I don't think so. YOu might mean ATA, since it's now Serial ATA.
Click to expand...
Poncho said:
Well.... I haven't used a IDE drive in years and the ram we use now is either DDR SDRAM or DDR2 SDRAM. Provided you have upgraded your system within the past few years. If you haven't then you may be using this older, dead technology.
Click to expand...


IDE = integrated drive electronics. SATA is part of this family of drives, just as DDR and DDR2 are part of the SDRAM family of RAM.
 
obviouslytom said:
its nice to see all the inovations with CPUs, but why cant they put the same inovation into the hard drives. No matter how fast these multi-core systems will be, they are still limited to the speed of the hard drive
Click to expand...



i-drives, i-ram, e-ram whatever they are calling it. gigabyte has been try to make this work/sell it for a year or 2. their version is a pci(?) card with several dimm slots that configs as a boot device. there are some boards around (not consumer) with 4-8gb of something like this onboard for os. saw 4gb flash memory for like $52 today. eventually will make hd's obsolete except for mass storage.
 
Poncho said:
Wow... way to nitpick. :rolleyes: You knew exactly what I was saying, as those are the terms used in the industry to descibe those devices. I understand if you can't come up with an argument.... but it would probably look better for you i you just stopped posting rather than grasping at straws. But hey... your choice. LOL
Click to expand...


I wasn't nitpicking, I just was unaware of a new drive technology that was mainstream that wasnt IDE. Christ, sorry.
 
Ranari said:
Why? Because Intel is gonna milk your ass for every dollar it can while it introduces technology over a slow period of time. Why introduce 3.6ghz Conroes when you can make money off of the 2.13ghz Conroes you're selling right now? Why introduce 80 core CPUs when you can milk consumers on quad core CPUs you're selling right now? (Or are going to here in a few months).

PR hot air I say.
Click to expand...

i was betting someone would bring up this point. obviosly your not a big fan of how the capitalist system works.... stoopid commie..... jkjk.

but no, i mean really. AMD introduced Barton, Intel realeased (rather quickly) Prescott, AMD introduces Venice/Manchester, Intel introduces Conroe/allendale/Kentsfield, AMD introduces (dont know single core name)/Grayhound/Barcelona... you get the point, and if you wanna proove your a bigger nerd then me by saying "you missed toledo/japanasitancorefromchina" by all means, but i got my point across.

If intels smart, they're researching a major upgrade from Core 2 duo right now. researching a new architecture, a way to get exicutions in/out faster, a way to reduce heat and power consumption, and maximize on the power they're consuming already. (intels W numbers on core 2 duo are complete bull shit btw).

if amds smart they already know that as soon as Barcelona gets released intels gonna grab it, find out how they got all 4 cores on one die, reduce the power consumed, and up the Hz (reverse engineering isnt illegal, to the contrary, its brilliant --let them do the work).

anywho, this is whats happining right now, Intels constantly being pushed, they constantly leap frog each other and i can assure you, as soon as it becomes even remotly feasable, (which it has already, 45nm? yeah..) they'll both start reasearching Octicores. if its found that you can actually find a program, to utilize 8 cores, both AMD and intel will research a way to get all of em on that lil peice of PCB.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
(intels W numbers on core 2 duo are complete bull shit btw).
Click to expand...


I'm assuming you are meaning their TDP/Wattage? If I'm misunderstanding you then forgive me... but you are wrong. I'm guessing that you say this because of the supposedly high temps that people are seeing correct? You have to understand that Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom uses a new way of reading temps from the CPU. This technology is called PECI and a quick and dirty explanation is that it reads the temps from 3 spots (3 on woodcrest, may be 2 from Conroe I'm not sure) but it reads these temps from INSIDE the die opposed to outside the die on previous CPUs. What this does is give you a more accurate reading, but also one that is also higher since inside the die it's hotter than outside. I can assure you that Intel is accurate in their TDP numbers. Forget temp readings.... can you show me a 100watt CPU that can be passively cooled WITHOUT any air flow on the HS?
 
80 cores? THATS IT?

LAME.

I was thinking like 2093 thousand cores in 10nm before 2007
 
Ranari said:
... I can see plenty of limitations for having 80 cores on a single die. Size, size, size, heat, size, cost, power consumption, size, heat, and simply manufacturing 80 cores on a single die and having every single one of them work...
Click to expand...

I see it from a different perspective-

Size- can we say 3D arrangements? 4 cores x 4 cores x 5 layers...
 
Poncho said:
People need to realize that this is ONLY marketed towards supercomputer type applications. This WILL NOT be in your little mid tower box at home... nor would it be able to run widows even. LOL I don't know why people are getting so bent out of shape over this. The .00000001% that this CPU may target IS NOT you nor I.
Click to expand...


Forecasting the killer applications that would utilize such power could make someone rather wealthy. Being a hobbyist for more than twenty years, it has been amazing to watch the advancements and the industries spawned by them.
 
I noticed this the other day. But, doesn't the Ps3 Cell CPU do 1.8 TFLOPS with 4 cores?
 
Im just glad MS decided to license winblows by the socket as opposed to "cores"

me: Id like 80 copies of winblows vista deluxe uber pron version please.
retailer:WTF mate? :eek:
 
Poncho said:
People need to realize that this is ONLY marketed towards supercomputer type applications. This WILL NOT be in your little mid tower box at home... nor would it be able to run widows even. LOL I don't know why people are getting so bent out of shape over this. The .00000001% that this CPU may target IS NOT you nor I.

:D
Click to expand...

Actually it will be in our mid-tower cases. As its great for video and audio encoding. It kills current dual core conroes. I'm glad I didn't jump on the Conroe bandwagon unitll Intel quad is rdy. Then I will jump on. lol

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2846
 
read the thread, we were speaking about the 80 core proc.. which im sure that would be good at a/v work aswell.
 
man 80 core cpu we need like 4 SCSI 15,000RPM drives working together to make that thing fast or we need new tech so we can have fast harddrives so we won have any bottlenecks.
 
Think of it like this, If intel Doubles the Cores every 12 months,

2006 - 4 Cores
2007 - 8 Cores
2008 - 16 Cores
2009 - 32 Cores
2010 - 64 Cores
2011 - 128 Cores (5 years from Now)
2012 - 256 Cores
2013 - 512 Cores
2014 - 1024 Cores
2015 - 2048 Cores
2016 - 4096 Cores (10 years from Now)
...

(Cool.. At 3.6ghz per core, 4096 Cores adds up to 14,745,600mhz.. neat..)
 
flynlr said:
Im just glad MS decided to license winblows by the socket as opposed to "cores"

me: Id like 80 copies of winblows vista deluxe uber pron version please.
retailer:WTF mate? :eek:
Click to expand...

And that's the reason I would never legally obtain a copy of Windows. It's MY computer, I can do to it what I want. Fuck off Microsoft.
 
revenant said:
but of course we'll all need quad cores and 4 gigs of memory (minimum) to run Outlook with spam filters enabled in two years..
Click to expand...

wrong, you will need quad cores and 4 gigs of memory just to open up Minesweeper
 
the windows love is ever present, heh, yea i dont like the monopoly or biz tactics etc... but windows is ok in my book it does the job for now.
 
dwilson041781 said:
the windows love is ever present, heh, yea i dont like the monopoly or biz tactics etc... but windows is ok in my book it does the job for now.
Click to expand...
nothin wrong with windows works for me to but theres nothing like the freedom of a linux box.....
 
Poncho said:
Wow... way to nitpick. :rolleyes: You knew exactly what I was saying, as those are the terms used in the industry to descibe those devices. I understand if you can't come up with an argument.... but it would probably look better for you i you just stopped posting rather than grasping at straws. But hey... your choice. LOL
Click to expand...


lol, you got pwnt regardless ='(
 
sabrewolf732 said:
lol, you got pwnt regardless ='(
Click to expand...


Care to explain to me how I got "pwnt"? :rolleyes: Go try and buy PC100 or PC133 and look what it's called. I'll give you a hint... it's SDRAM. DDR and DDR2 chips are called DDR SDRAM and DDR2 SDRAM. No DDR(2).... just SDRAM.

As for IDE.... well, sure if you want to get 100% technical then he is correct. Though in the "industry" ATA drives are referred to simply as IDE.

:rolleyes:
 
Poncho said:
Care to explain to me how I got "pwnt"? :rolleyes: Go try and buy PC100 or PC133 and look what it's called. I'll give you a hint... it's SDRAM. DDR and DDR2 chips are called DDR SDRAM and DDR2 SDRAM. No DDR(2).... just SDRAM.

As for IDE.... well, sure if you want to get 100% technical then he is correct. Though in the "industry" ATA drives are referred to simply as IDE.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


They are STILL of the SDRAM family. Just like how tigers and cats are both felines.
 
Poncho said:
Care to explain to me how I got "pwnt"? :rolleyes: Go try and buy PC100 or PC133 and look what it's called. I'll give you a hint... it's SDRAM. DDR and DDR2 chips are called DDR SDRAM and DDR2 SDRAM. No DDR(2).... just SDRAM.

As for IDE.... well, sure if you want to get 100% technical then he is correct. Though in the "industry" ATA drives are referred to simply as IDE.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
IDE drives encompass ATA, SCSI, S-ATA, and SA-SCSI, if i remember correctly. They are all the same type of devices (though i havent seen any SA-SCSI devices for consumers yet..)
 
TheBluePill said:
Think of it like this, If intel Doubles the Cores every 12 months,

2006 - 4 Cores
2007 - 8 Cores
2008 - 16 Cores
2009 - 32 Cores
2010 - 64 Cores
2011 - 128 Cores (5 years from Now)
2012 - 256 Cores
2013 - 512 Cores
2014 - 1024 Cores
2015 - 2048 Cores
2016 - 4096 Cores (10 years from Now)
...

(Cool.. At 3.6ghz per core, 4096 Cores adds up to 14,745,600mhz.. neat..)
Click to expand...

Until they come up with the next trick for the toolbox and even beat that equivalent performance..
 
jen4950 said:
Until they come up with the next trick for the toolbox and even beat that equivalent performance..
Click to expand...

By 2016 I would hope we would have some of the newer techs like Quantum Computing or Diamond based SC....mmmm...Diamond Cores....

You could take the current core tech we have now, put it on Diamond and jack it up to 30ghz without thermal failure or too much heat dissapation...
 
Poncho said:
Care to explain to me how I got "pwnt"? :rolleyes: Go try and buy PC100 or PC133 and look what it's called. I'll give you a hint... it's SDRAM. DDR and DDR2 chips are called DDR SDRAM and DDR2 SDRAM. No DDR(2).... just SDRAM.

As for IDE.... well, sure if you want to get 100% technical then he is correct. Though in the "industry" ATA drives are referred to simply as IDE.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


ide stands for integrated drive electronics. back in the day, the electronic circuits used to operate and control hard drives were not on board the drive itself, but were on the motherboard or a daughtercard. the hard drive only encompassed mechanical parts. when those circuits became smaller and were finally moved onto the harddrive itself, they became "integrated drive electronics" drives. if your drive, optical or hard, has the electronics that control the operation of the drive onboard the drive (not the circuits that control the interface) it is an ide drive. ide does not in any wway refer to the interface. so which ever one of you was debating the point of "all drives are ide"(at least any drive made in the last couple hundred years) is correct.
the definition of sdram is harder to pin down because in the late '90s retailers and marketrs started to refer to sdr sdram as just sdram. but basically sdram, synchronous dynamic random access memory is any ram that CAN (not necessarily does) run synchronously with the system clock..so whoever was debating the point of "all ram is called sdram"(at least all ram made in the last couple hundred years) is correct.
 
TheBluePill said:
Think of it like this, If intel Doubles the Cores every 12 months,

2006 - 4 Cores
2007 - 8 Cores
2008 - 16 Cores
2009 - 32 Cores
2010 - 64 Cores
2011 - 128 Cores (5 years from Now)
2012 - 256 Cores
2013 - 512 Cores
2014 - 1024 Cores
2015 - 2048 Cores
2016 - 4096 Cores (10 years from Now)
...

(Cool.. At 3.6ghz per core, 4096 Cores adds up to 14,745,600mhz.. neat..)
Click to expand...
While I have a lot of faith in EE's, I doubt that we will see a doubling of CPU cores every 12 months. If Intel is still in pursuit of Moore's 'law' every 18 months makes sense and by the time the quad core is mainstream (1Q07) it'll have been ~18 months from the introduction of the dual-core pentium 4.

Also, depending on how exactly intel plans to achieve this, there are physical limitations to parallel processing as well, unless we get MMCM's (Massively multi-chip modules) :D
 
sabrewolf732 said:
Wow if you're wrong, you're wrong. Point is Barron was technically right... and you tried to call him out on it. YOU'RE WRONG BUDDY, end of story.
Click to expand...
qft, but while we're going on about technicalities.. ;)

vanilla_guerilla said:
so whoever was debating the point of "all ram is called sdram"(at least all ram made in the last couple hundred years) is correct.
Click to expand...
don't forget about SRAM.. the stuff that has 6 transistors per bit instead of a capacitor and a transistor per bit. the stuff that goes into CPU cache.. :D


Poncho said:
I'm assuming you are meaning their TDP/Wattage? If I'm misunderstanding you then forgive me... but you are wrong. I'm guessing that you say this because of the supposedly high temps that people are seeing correct? You have to understand that Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom uses a new way of reading temps from the CPU. This technology is called PECI and a quick and dirty explanation is that it reads the temps from 3 spots (3 on woodcrest, may be 2 from Conroe I'm not sure) but it reads these temps from INSIDE the die opposed to outside the die on previous CPUs. What this does is give you a more accurate reading, but also one that is also higher since inside the die it's hotter than outside. I can assure you that Intel is accurate in their TDP numbers. Forget temp readings.... can you show me a 100watt CPU that can be passively cooled WITHOUT any air flow on the HS?
Click to expand...
regardless of what the temps reported by a cheapass sensor with a cheapass sensor chip on the mobo, the fact remains that intel rates TDP at a sorta idle state. actual power output can be higher than what intel specifies.
amd on the other hand, uses a completely bloated figure that represents the power draw assuming max supported vcore, max supported temp, and something silly like every transistor flipping states at the same time. something we will never hit irl, so the max realworld tdp is lower than the specified tdp.. probably like 75-80% in most cases ;)
and btw, the thermal sensor in K8 is inside the cpu. not out.
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
The difference is this has no physically unbreakable boundaries, read the darn thing...Can you at least think before posting?
Click to expand...

And at the time Intel and people thought 10GHZ had no boundaries either.... and it would be a piece of cake - but look! they ran into boundaries, same applies here. One cant say what limitations they may run into, or new problems that will come up.

It would be awsome, now for software companies to get off their asses and code for multi-core a hell of alot faster!

and i wouldnt care if my cpu was the size of an x1900XT, to have 80 cores on it ?

everyone wants everything to be microscopic, if i can get that many cores, i dont care if the cpu is the size of a mid tower case!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top