What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
73 Comments
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54Ninjab3ar, why do I get the feeling you live in a situation where you're not responsible for the electric bill?
- spc2226, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37Not true.. Doesn't even make sense really.. If you have two cores, you can have a game running on one core (i.e, has 100% of that cpu to itself) and the other OS stuff running on the other core.. It's not as simple as this but it's a good description. The game can use all of the one core and doesn't have to share cycles with the OS and other programs you have running.. I have a dual core opteron and I can tell the difference very easily.. If I ALT-Tab from a full screen game, like Half life for example. On my old single core it would take a minute for the OS to be useable again. With dual core I can alt-tab back and forth like it was fricken itunes. More cores helps.
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34Ninja, did you even read the Digg summary? It says they only use dual cores when it's not given much work. When you want your PERFORMANCE, it'll be there.
- emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -5/+38So I'm not the only person who has been referring to them as dualies... sweet.
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30@doolin
Results 1 - 10 of about 529 for ognib. (0.25 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ognib - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"There's a billiard hall franchise in Canada called Dooly's"
Duly noted. - nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17multi-threaded games and programs.
- RadiatedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13excellent, my car does the same thing when im cruising down traffic lane it uses 4 cylindars and when I floor it it opens all 8
- millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Grabbed by the Dualies
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Engines can be V-8-6-4, now CPUs will be Quad-Dual-Single? It makes great sense. Why have 4 cores fired up waiting for the human key presser to create a document? Yet, we will still be able to "Four-It" when gaming or other intensive tasks. That will become the test of a power user, does your processor feel you are worthy of it's cores.
- defubar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8What is up with the energy efficiency is that businesses running hundreds of computers, and therefore buy the most, pay humongous energy bills. Any savings in their pocket may very well help them in making their decision to go with AMD next time.
- PantherX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Notice the article points out the info was dated back in 2005... things change.
- Ashex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not to mention servers!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Thanks for the answers, guys. I read up a Wikipedia entry on this before, and it confused me, so I thought I'd ask here.
- doolin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15@ daldredge
You gotta be ***** me...
:) - tehJR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There's a billiard hall franchise in Canada called Dooly's
just an FYI - rjarow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Directed to the comments on using as much power as possible - This is all well and good if you are a home user, and really aren't concerned with 1 system going balls to the wall..
Those of us using these processors in a server environment who pay for a LOT for their power, every bit of savings is good for the wellbeing of the company.
It's good to see some initiative in this area! - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Isn't it true that a single-core processor outperforms multi-core processors"
No. Never. A 2.2ghz single core of a 2.2ghz dual core proc will perform exactly as fast as a single core 2.2ghz proc.
Now, a dual core 2.2ghz proc won't perform as well as a 4.4 ghz single core proc could, conceivably, but no one's ever claimed they would. - sLydE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5To expand on what nreynolds said:
Older games that are not multi-threaded (programmed in such a way as to take advantage of multiple cores, or multiple processors) could *possibly* run faster on single core chips. Now, I would think that a lot of games in the near future will be changing to a multi-threaded programming method, as to take advantage of the hardware industry's acceptance of multi-core chips. This would mean faster games, more impressive features (AI, physics, lighting, etc.). - dealsdealer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5yo' momma sooooo fat .............. she needs Quad Core AMD processor to burn it...
- Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3sounds like v-tech
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, that's not it at all. It's more like having more pairs of hands AND being abe to use them all at once. Only multi-threading isn't 100% efficient so two cores isn't twice as fast.
Also, using the pairs of hands analogy, having two extra hands won't make you handwrite any faster with any one hand, but you can potentially write four things at once.
The idea is that processors execute things one at a time. That's why when your CPU is pinged at 100% you have a hard time doing anything. When you are doing two things at once the CPU switches back and forth between those two things. Since CPUs are very fast and most tasks are slow, you don't notice this problem (just like how you don't notice that your light blubs are flickering on and off 60 times per second). - Menel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Why do I get the "filling" that you didn't make it past kindergarden level English class.
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds a lot like displacement on demand!
- Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's a damn fast cat.
- Kev1000000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@esh...
While true, apps and games are written with multi-threads, which multi-processors run on each core.
So using the term multithreading is perfectly acceptable when talking about multiple cores. - ChrisPikula, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ shaken
Lightbulbs *don't* flicker.
The electricity is oscillating at 60 Hz, but the filament is still hot, thus it continues to shine.
Think. - dealsdealer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@shakin
that's true , CPU scheduling among various CPU-intensive applications ( ex. games ...) is faster , given that each core has its own L2 cache, each process executes almost simultaneously, hence the faster experience. 'pairs of hands' analogy is to depict each core.
- tweekgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2nreynolds is short and sweet. Threaded games can take advantage of the processors by processing two processor commands at a time. A single threaded application (which there are a whole heck of a lot of), will send the calls incrementally to one processor... This isn't something that should necessarily be changed for some applications, which require the value of the previous command immediately to continue functioning.
If, however, you have (overly simplistic) one thread drawing the trees in an environment and another drawing the sky, then you'll notice a performance increase because each task can be run on the different processors. Again, it doesn't work exactly that way after scheduling, but that's the jist of it from what I know.
Edit: when I was replying there was only one reply to the parent :) - Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2More like you can use both pairs of hands, but some tasks are only suited to be used with one pair of hands at a time. However, that other pair will still have other little things to do.
- Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So you are saying that when running Windows, all the spy-ware and malware will run on one core while I have a frag fest on the other? ...sweet.
- Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow AMD is making great strides with there 4x4 solutions.
I often wondered how there 4x4 packages could compete with Intel's latest chips, especially on the power point but scaling down to two cores makes good sense. Couple this with Cool&quiet and we will have some pretty efficient chips on our desktops.
However, Intel still have the superior design and I read earlier this week that they also have a 4 core solution coming up. Assuming this will be designed on Conroe architecture it will put the AMD 4x4 solutions to shame in both performance and efficiency.
It will be great to see all these technologies coming out and tested in 2007. - bnolsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Regarding turning cores on and off on the fly:
I'm guessing they'll add this as an OS managed system feature, similar in nature to how "speed step" or "powernow" works.
An OS scheduler would get pretty pissed if some of the processor resources it currently knows about suddenly just "disappear". - Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@yliag
you are wrong, multi-core processors have better performance versus single core processors when it comes to running multiple applications, or multithreaded applications.
as newer, multi-threaded games come out, they will take advantage of teh performance in a dual-core chip.
for now, dual-core chips still have an advantage on games, allowing you to run background applications on one, while relieveing teh stress off of the other so it can focus on bigger more demanding apps (the games). - dohidied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hopefully this will work better than early DOD systems.
- Blitzenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The dual cores or processors definately will out perform a single core of the same family. You will not see double the performance however as there is a fair amount of overhead that needs to take place to manage the code between the two cores thereby reducing the amount of processor time avaiable for your tasks. So far it seems to be running around 150% performance gain from a single core to a dual core. Of course as other posters mention, that will depend greatly on whether the code you is optimized for multiprocessors. 150% represents optimized code.
- Cholito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Why do I fill like intel is always one step behind AMD? ;o)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How will the chip use the cores per processes? or will you have the ability to specifiy what apps use which/how many cores? lets say i have xp running, and i run anti virus, and play a game, how will it know how many cores to use for which? will each core take on a task? or will it be spread over all the cores?
- HsoKinees, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lemme get this straight.. the CPU will put 2 of it's cores to sleep if they're not getting used much?
great idea :D
however.. how does it decide on usage? o.O total CPU % perhaps? I wonder if it'll shift the app to another CPU if it only uses a low %, so it can put the other one to sleep? very interesting idea.. - Wiman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's when you use the "set affinity" in the taskmanager, you can then chose what core/cores/cpus that task will use.
If you don't set it yourself it will split the usage on all cores so they are equaly used - CompIsMyRx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He might be referring to florescent lights, which do flicker instead of a constant shine.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1AMD's current chips may not do this currently, but AMD processors with Cool and Quiet enabled already consume less power while resting than Conroe does. At full load, Conroe uses a bit less power. If AMD would get on board with 65nm process, they'd have a huge power advantage in both cases. Performance at the high-end would still favor Conroe, unless AMD revised their architechture (adds another execution unit).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@RadiatedAnt
Yes, I was going to write that out. I would not be suprised if that is where AMD got the idea from originally. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MikeCerm, there is no info that backs up what you say.
The power ratings you see are total system power. At idle, the CPU is a small amount of the power consumed by the system, whether AMD or Intel. The low ratings on the AMD may be due to chipset or motherboard differences. It's just impossible to tell with the info we have.
Your comments about 65nm putting AMD in the lead are also optimistic and unsupportable. You cannot be sure that AMD would pass up Intel on power usage with 65nm. Additionally, adding another execution unit may not be the trick for AMD, since current info about AMD performance seems to indicate it is already running into problems getting the instructions into the current execution units at the high end. Adding more execution units isn't going to overcome this. - Cholito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1speaking 3 languages is neves easy...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@nonsequitor
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32885 - jsp317, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1With a dual core you should gain about 40 % performance over a single core. You can play your game plus watch a DVD if you have two monitors. You got two core's doing there job. Sweet
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Intel already does this with their Core chips. I kinda thought AMD did it with their X2s (which I am using right now), but I guess not.
Intel showed new (on-package) regulator technology last year at the IDF (Intel Developers' Forum) that allowed them to turn the power on and off to a core with a resolution of a few milliseconds. This means they can turn off the extra cores much more often, since they can bring them back on such short notice. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intel's Kentsfield solution will be ready before the end of the year. Someone on xtremesystems.org has had one for months.
It has two cores per die, two dice per package. So you are buying what appears to be a single chip, but really it is two. This isn't quite as good as all 4 on one die, especially since Intel doesn't have NUMA. But it should still outperform AMD's current technologies (I don't have info on their new technologies for next year). Intel's 4 CPUs on one die become available mid next year I think. - Skeithy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hope they have an option to shut this off like cool n quiet, I'd like to have all four cores blazing as much as possible. Since I have the urge to do as many thing at once as possible. But this will work great for mobile users
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is