Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Toms] Intel to Ship 10-core CPUs in First Half of 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Toms] Intel to Ship 10-core CPUs in First Half of 2011 - Page 9

post #81 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by kromar;12448382 
what are you talking about? is this some fanboy talk? i never said anything about amd is faster or anything like that... just that workstations profit more from core amount no mather what brand....

Fanboys are annoying -__-
Blue Box
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k Asus P8P67 Sapphire 7950 Dual X  8gb gskill ripjaws x-1600  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
500 gb seagate Sony Corsair H60 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
22 inch V7 1680x1050 Steelseries Shift Keyboard Antec Neo eco 620w Cm 690 w/ 5 140mm fans 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech mx518 random Altec lansing  
  hide details  
Reply
Blue Box
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k Asus P8P67 Sapphire 7950 Dual X  8gb gskill ripjaws x-1600  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
500 gb seagate Sony Corsair H60 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
22 inch V7 1680x1050 Steelseries Shift Keyboard Antec Neo eco 620w Cm 690 w/ 5 140mm fans 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech mx518 random Altec lansing  
  hide details  
Reply
post #82 of 168
Hyperthreading....AMD.....INTEL.....8, 16, 254 cores....Meh............

Will it play Doom 2?????

smile.gif
post #83 of 168
The point of multiple core processors was never for improved performance - it was to improve chip yields. It is pretty much as easy to put four cores on a chip, and chop out the defective ones; as it is to make individual chips. So if a manufacturer makes a quad core chip, and two cores fail in tests, then they still have a marketable duo-core.

Multiple cores work well if applications are multithreaded - but the vast majority of applications are not multithreaded, and may not even be able to be multithreaded because of the nature of the program. So multithreaded may be a performance boost in gaming, where problems can be broken down into smaller chunks - but would be worthless for data acquision, or even CAD rendering, where the following step requires the answer from the previous step.

However, the real benefit has been in the fact that they have added cores without boosting power consumption - and power consumption and problems with heat - not to mention bottlenecking and poor latency, where the doom of stuff like the P4.

When it comes to development of software, one real problem is the fact that they keep pushing out new programming languages all of the time - so no one really gets to perfect anything. Nor is their any drive to perfect anything because there is no profit in it. In the old days, programmers spent much time shaving clock cycles off, and reducing the footprint of software. They needed to, machines were slow and memory very limited - and the cost of speed and storage were huge compared to the time spent optimizing softwware. They don't bother with that anymore - it's all about creating something that they can get to market quickly and score maximum profit. If we entered an age where storage became expensive again, then developers would end up needing to optimize their product, and using things like multiple threads. But with the cost of a 2GB memory stick being equivalent to what we used to pay for a single 64kb memory chip; and with 1TB hard drives being the price of what we used to pay for a box of 10 SSDD floppy disks...
post #84 of 168
Isnt this old news?
Ive seen 12 core opterons ages ago smile.gif
AzuraChan
(13 items)
 
Haruna
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II x6 1055T Asus M4A88TD-V Evo/Usb3 EVGA GTX460 1GB SC + 9800GT Phsyx 2x2GB Corsair 1333MHZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
6.8TB Total w7 + ubuntu 19" something Seasonic S12II 520W 
Case
modded antec 902 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
I7 3630QM GTX660M 2GB + HD4000 8GB 1600Mhz 1TB  
Optical DriveOSCase
Blu Ray thing Win8 64bit Lenovo Y580 
  hide details  
Reply
AzuraChan
(13 items)
 
Haruna
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II x6 1055T Asus M4A88TD-V Evo/Usb3 EVGA GTX460 1GB SC + 9800GT Phsyx 2x2GB Corsair 1333MHZ 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
6.8TB Total w7 + ubuntu 19" something Seasonic S12II 520W 
Case
modded antec 902 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
I7 3630QM GTX660M 2GB + HD4000 8GB 1600Mhz 1TB  
Optical DriveOSCase
Blu Ray thing Win8 64bit Lenovo Y580 
  hide details  
Reply
post #85 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvanPitts;12457356 
The point of multiple core processors was never for improved performance - it was to improve chip yields. It is pretty much as easy to put four cores on a chip, and chop out the defective ones; as it is to make individual chips. So if a manufacturer makes a quad core chip, and two cores fail in tests, then they still have a marketable duo-core.

Hate to disagree, but the whole reason Intel developed Netburst was because they thought clockspeeds were just going to keep increasing - when they hit the limit of the silicon, they realised they'd have to start adding cores so more tasks could be done simultaneously, rather than more quickly - hence Core 2. Adding cores was never to do with chip yields - Intel's first attempts at both dual cores and quad cores were simply single and dual core chips stapled together. AMD had terrible yield problems with their first quad core chips, simply because of the relative complexity - the larger a chip is, the more likely it is to have a flaw (simply because of the frequency of errors on the silicon. Triple core chips were conceived as a solution for this (ie to lose AMD less money from dodgy chips) but they were not the driving force with the move to four cores.

Intel has never sold dual cores made from disabled quads. AMD sells core disabled chips - but this is a cost mitigation tactic - if they could, they'd have no X2 or X3 chips and all X4. This has actually backfired somewhat - in that some chips can be enabled to four core - which implies that AMD are having to sell good quad chips at the lower dual price.

Parallel processing has been developed because processor speed is derived from the clockspeed - and the processor speed brickwalled between around 2005 and 2010 at around 3-4GHz. Because of this, extra cores were added, in order to increase speed without needing to increase clockspeed.
Edited by Cepheus - 2/20/11 at 3:23pm
Current PC
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k Asus Maximus IV Extreme KFA2 GTX 580 Point of View GTX 580 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP Crucial M4 Some Samsung Custom Water Cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit NEC 30 inch Razer Black Widow Corsair AX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ07-S Steelseries Xai Razer Destructor Sennheiser HD 800 
Audio
Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
Current PC
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i5 2500k Asus Maximus IV Extreme KFA2 GTX 580 Point of View GTX 580 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance LP Crucial M4 Some Samsung Custom Water Cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit NEC 30 inch Razer Black Widow Corsair AX850W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Silverstone TJ07-S Steelseries Xai Razer Destructor Sennheiser HD 800 
Audio
Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #86 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cepheus;12460099 
Hate to disagree, but the whole reason Intel developed Netburst was because they thought clockspeeds were just going to keep increasing - when they hit the limit of the silicon, they realised they'd have to start adding cores so more tasks could be done simultaneously, rather than more quickly - hence Core 2. Adding cores was never to do with chip yields - Intel's first attempts at both dual cores and quad cores were simply single and dual core chips stapled together. AMD had terrible yield problems with their first quad core chips, simply because of the relative complexity - the larger a chip is, the more likely it is to have a flaw (simply because of the frequency of errors on the silicon. Triple core chips were conceived as a solution for this (ie to lose AMD less money from dodgy chips) but they were not the driving force with the move to four cores.

Neither AMD or Intel has ever sold a dual core chip made from a quad core die with two cores disabled. AMD sells chips with the L3 cache removed - but this is purely a cost-mitigation tactic - if they could, they'd have no X3 chips and all X4.

Parallel processing has been developed because processor speed is derived from the clockspeed - and the processor speed brickwalled between around 2005 and 2010 at around 3-4GHz. Because of this, extra cores were added, in order to increase speed without needing to increase clockspeed.

wasn't the athlon x2 7750 BE a dual core that was able to unlock to quad?
Rarity
(4 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsHard DriveOS
AMD Phenom II P960 ATI Radeon Mobility 4250 Seagate Momentus 7200rpm Arch Linux 
  hide details  
Reply
Rarity
(4 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsHard DriveOS
AMD Phenom II P960 ATI Radeon Mobility 4250 Seagate Momentus 7200rpm Arch Linux 
  hide details  
Reply
post #87 of 168
Athlon x2 5000 (AM2+ 2.2Ghz)
Athlon II x2 215
Athlon II x2 220
Phenom II x2 545
Phenom II x2 550
Phenom II x2 555
Phenom II x2 560
Phenom II x2 565
All locked quad cores.
post #88 of 168
Moar cores = moar powah, right?

: )
IntelAsylum R2.1
(14 items)
 
M11xR2
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G 16GB Ripjaw X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
R0: 2x1TB WD Se Samsung 840 EVO LG UH12LS28 BDD Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell E2414H x2 M$ Sidewinder x4 Seasonic 600W CM HAF 932A 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitec M705 MouseMat 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7 GT335m 1gb 4gb ddr3 Sandisk 128GB SSD 
OS
Windows/Linux/Depends 
  hide details  
Reply
IntelAsylum R2.1
(14 items)
 
M11xR2
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500k ASRock Z77 Extreme6 MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G 16GB Ripjaw X 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
R0: 2x1TB WD Se Samsung 840 EVO LG UH12LS28 BDD Windows 7 Ultimate x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell E2414H x2 M$ Sidewinder x4 Seasonic 600W CM HAF 932A 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitec M705 MouseMat 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i7 GT335m 1gb 4gb ddr3 Sandisk 128GB SSD 
OS
Windows/Linux/Depends 
  hide details  
Reply
post #89 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cepheus;12460099 
Neither AMD or Intel has ever sold a dual core chip made from a quad core die with two cores disabled. AMD sells chips with the L3 cache removed - but this is purely a cost-mitigation tactic - if they could, they'd have no X3 chips and all X4.

I see xd_1771 beat me to it, but...

No. All Phenom II X2-X4 chips are based on the Deneb (quad) die, and no cores are laser-cut or hardware disabled in any other manner.
post #90 of 168
Vdek to build a new computer in first half of 2011.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Toms] Intel to Ship 10-core CPUs in First Half of 2011