What is Digg?130 Comments
- bigblackclock, on 03/27/2008, -4/+55Bottlenecks.
Imagine a 5 lane freeway converging into a single lane. Increasing the GHZ would be like sending more cars down the freeway to solve the problem.
Introducing more cores is like adding more lanes to the highway. - ExRe, on 03/27/2008, -1/+42Because slower, more efficient cores were faster for most applications, used less energy, and put out less heat.
You can see the utter failure Intel had with Netburst at the end of it's life. The Prescott and Pentium D's sucked, and AMD was mopping the floor with them with much slower clocked and overall much better cores. - Spuy767, on 03/27/2008, -5/+38Translated by Google: AMD desparately releases a few more mediocre, budget-priced chips in hopes to scratch up enough cash to stay in business.
I used to be a huge AMD fan as the Opterons were decimating Intel in the server space. Since the XEON 5100 series tho, AMD hasn't had so much as a deent competitor, and they can barely compete on price. Intel has taken anothen round, and AMD is doing everything it can to hang in there. - algorhythmix, on 03/27/2008, -3/+27This has kind of started to feel like Razors ...2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2 ..
- kingmanic, on 03/27/2008, -1/+23The loss of competition can only be bad for us. I have never been a AMD fan but recently did a bunch of low end orders for AMD powered computers to help them stay afloat. The systems aren't' critical, Performance wasn't an issue, and without the competition of another CPU vendor in the consumer space Intel would slow their innovation to pad their profit margin. If it wasn't for AMD I wouldn't have my Core 2 Quad 6600. so I'll throw AMD some business so they both keep pushing themselves.
- LimeParrot, on 03/27/2008, -5/+26This is a perfect opportunity to ask a totally unrelated question I've always wondered about... (Keep in mind this is coming from a total computer illiterate...) Remember when newer CPU's would just have higher and higher MHz and eventually GHz? What made the computer companies change direction and go with multiple cores? I know you can read up on it on, say, wikipedia, but it's too confusing. Would be nice to get a bottom-line answer from a fellow digger. Thanks! *sorry about off-topic-ness*
- theblt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+16If you remember a few years ago, this is what Intel was doing, while AMD was focusing more on the actual structure of the CPU. That was an odd time in computing as we were no longer measuring performance in GHz, but rather per CPU depending on the benchmarks. That's when AMD took the lead and Intel finally had to get off its ass and create something new instead of just "pushing the GHz".
The problem with just pushing the GHz up higher is that it eventually creates a lot of heat, also you can only push it so far before the chip just becomes unstable. So Intel did a bit of research and actually went back to a structure similar Pentium 3's. It produces less heat, and is just more efficient overall. I'm not sure what sparked the multiple cores, maybe partially due to the research done by Sony/Toshiba with the Cell processor.
Overall, it seems to me while Intel was ahead a several years ago, it was because they were the only dog on the block and they didn't have to innovate. They just pushed the FSB and people were happy. AMD came along, took the crown, Intel finally decided to do some innovations. They found that multiple cores are more efficient as tasks can be delegated to each core. Unfortunately, just as the 64-bit architecture, developers aren't taking advantage of these new features. It's rare that you'll find an application that seriously takes advantage of a quad-core CPU. Hopefully that day comes soon. - Neoanarchist, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15Actually increasing GHz is increasing speed, so it would be like increasing the speed at which the cars could travel down the highway which in turn would result in higher output. However, the rest of your analogy is fine. Although Dell's product magazine has had this analogy for years.
- KillSudo, on 03/27/2008, -2/+17The simple answer is heat. Pushing clock speeds with our current technology led to massive heatsinks and hundred + watt chips. They kinda decided that they could fit 2, 4, 6, 8 etc cores on a chip at 2-3ghz per core and this would lead to much better performance for end users. Most people use their pc to multi-task not run just one single application at an insane rate.
- webRat, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13We don't need more idle cores or faster speeds. We need programs to start checking for other cores and taking advantage of them. :p
- jamesdew, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14not really, increasing the GHz would be like making the cars travel faster
- Mootabolife, on 03/27/2008, -3/+14Intel by a long shot in performance. Intel by a little in price.
- warriorscot, on 03/27/2008, -1/+10Considering the relative size of AMD its pretty impressive they are keeping it up, and the majority of the markey don't buy top of the line they buy the budget gear and if AMD can sell competive chips at the normal price they will turn a profit, if they can match performance with intel at the £100-150 mark I will happily go with AMD as they have the advantage in motherboards in price and performance.
- Skull0Inc, on 03/27/2008, -5/+14AMD strike back!
- NeoNevermore, on 03/27/2008, -1/+10Finally! Some decent competition with Intel.
I prefer Intel chips but we always need to see some competition... it would help boost productivity and lower prices. The last thing I would want is having no options. - Hoover889, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9the mid 3 GHz hump is not caused by a problem in chip architecture, it is because of limitations in the speed that an electron can travel in a circuit. at 3 GHz an electron cannot travel more than 100cm between cycles, and that is assuming that the metal is superconductive in reality it travels closer to 75cm between cycles, multi core increases the time between cycles and sends data down different paths.
- barf314, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9They would sell millions if they just named the individual cores 'Power', 'Wisdom', and 'Courage'.
- spudnic, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9AMD really needs to pull something out the bag soon, having no competition in the processor market would be a very bad thing.
- digdug2008, on 03/27/2008, -2/+10Here we go, AMD Vs Intel wars...
- chanop, on 03/27/2008, -5/+13can't increase GHZ or MHZ anymore with the material that the chips are made of
- TechCF, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8The tricore is there to replace the dual cores
- warriorscot, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Easy to say, but AMD are a small company and Intel a big one, they had an advantage in some brilliant engineers and surprise before now Intel looked at what they did and learned the lesson they won't soon make the same mistake again.
- tfox2k1, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7AMD is in bad shape. Intel has completely taken over the high end processor market. I believe the only thing keeping AMD alive is the console market.
The .45nm Penryn chips are simply amazing and it will be at least a year before AMD even releases a .45 based upon their previous performance.
I hope AMD survives, Intel is already inflating their prices. - cheezintern, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Too little, too late...AMD is years behind intel at this point. Intel's looking to be releasing an 8 core chip on a 45nm wafer later this year, meanwhile AMD is just releasing (slower) quad cores finally on 65nm wafers.
- outsider787, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6They try because they were #1 at one point not too long ago. I'm sure glad you're not working for AMD right now.
They need all the positive thinking they can get, to catch up, and leap ahead. - Foxcow, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6AMD v. Intel. The war is cyclical.
- lnxfi, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Speak for yourself. I'd pay to see that.
- icewolf316, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6If they stopped trying then you would be paying much more for CPUs than you are now.
- leerayIG88, on 03/27/2008, -3/+9i love my turtle.
- dracflamloc, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6i dont know why you are dugg down for that. its a pretty amusing analogy
- jsuther, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6No the tri-cores are quads processors. Quad prcessors in which one of the three cores doesn't meet spec so it is disabled and sold as a tri-core. This increases yields by AMD and lowers the cost of quad core processors. You will likely only see tri-cores from AMD because they have native quad core on the die where Intel has a pair of dual cores on a single die. If Intel was to do the same thing they would need to sell their partial bad quad cores as a dual cores because of they way they make chips.
- inactive, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6No. They're just behind Intel now.
Its always good to have competition. The companies constantly compete for your money by cutting prices to make more sales and coming out with more products. - MrErr, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5This is the right answer. It really is not about bottlenecks or heat. It is just that anymore increasing of frequency would make such big chips unstable. This is coming from a computer engineer.
- inactive, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5FINALLY.
Now let's see those 45nm Quads! - kronix2, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6AMD's CPUs were faster because their cores were more efficient, and they had an integrated memory controller.
It has nothing to do with x64 support. - icewolf316, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6That was true with Netburst architecture, which is obsolete right now.
- Spuy767, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Ok, if we're following the car analogy. A netburst machine running at 3.8 GHz is like a single lane freeway with cars travelling at 380 mph. Occasionally, there is a crash (failed branch prediction.) The entire mess of cars have to be moved before the lane can open again. Keep in mind that even the best prediction algs fail quite often. Now, picture yourself on a four lane freeway where the cars can only travel 220mph. If there is a crash on one lane, the cars that are caught behind the crash just move to the next less populous ane without much drama and execution continues much more quickly than if it were on a sinle, extremely fast moving lane.
- ApokalypseNow, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5That's a start, but don't forget that we do run more than one application at a time, even if we are not thinking about it. Even with a paltry dual-core setup, if you have one core handling Windows, anti-virus, background email, and mp3 player, you can have the whole second core dealing with whatever you're actually working on. I agree though, we do need more multi-threaded applications.
- NeoPlatonist, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5I built my computer back when AMD was smoking Intel with an Athlon X2, but the way things are going my next computer will have a Core 2 Duo. (Quads are out of my budget and, frankly, I doubt I will need that kind of performance for a few years still)
- asdfrewq, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4The thing about 64bit computing is even though a large portion of the market may be running 64bit hardware, the majority are still only using 32bit operating systems. Without a 64bit operating system, the hardware is useless. Multicore processors, on the other hand, can be utilized on any modern operating system and since both intel and AMD appear to have declared multicore the way of the future, software vendors will have no choice but to keep up.
- lateralus, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4but are any of the cars hybrid?
- deviouskoopa, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5After the answers by ExRe and bigblackclock, no further explanations were/are needed. Continuing speculations regarding MHz barriers and miniaturization are pointless.
- legendxx, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6learn to use the reply button
- InorganicMatter, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4I believe you meant:
AMD strike out! - spudnic, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5There isn't a huge difference in price between the dual and quad cores to be honest, and they are more future-proof.
- caleb4mj, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4I think you're right. Besides, the cheapest dual-core is more than fast enough for everything I need today. I would love to buy quad cores and upgrade, but I don't see a compelling reason to spend more money on this generation of tech. I'll wait until marketing convinces me this time. Good luck.
- Psythik, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6Well the Core 2 Solo is just a C2D with a defective core...
- theblt, on 03/27/2008, -3/+7Wasn't this news on Tom's Hardware like 2 months ago? Or is this something new that I'm not getting?
Essentially these are AMD's quad-cores with a defective core that they electronically disable, then sell as a tri-core. - Marglar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I can agree with that... :)
- hybridcreation, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Beat me to it.
AMD is grasping at straws. -
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is