What is Digg?107 Comments
- quidpro, on 09/05/2008, -5/+31Umm. You're "8 core" is two quads...xeons...made by intel, you yokel.
- machocheese34, on 09/05/2008, -7/+33***** man how about we use the cores we have before we start multiplying them like crazy
- Frazzlet, on 09/05/2008, -1/+23I haven't even got a quad yet!
- sleeknerve, on 09/05/2008, -1/+17reminds me of
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930 - inactive, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1616 cores or bust! But yeah, I am MORE than happy with my q6600, pointlessly OC'd to 3.4ghz...
Does anyone else here love the q6600 cpus? - groo68, on 09/05/2008, -0/+14It could be 12 core
- inactive, on 09/05/2008, -4/+16But will it run Crysis?
- 2Bnor2B, on 09/05/2008, -0/+11Hooray for all the upcoming price reductions on the quad cores!!
- VyRuZ, on 09/05/2008, -2/+12Pointless Vista bashing.
You forgot it's aimed at people who actually need it. When was the last time you bought a 2000$ CPU, *****? - HookmasterCH47, on 09/05/2008, -14/+24Intel, it's like AMD except it isn't *****.
- tama00, on 09/05/2008, -1/+10Of course it wont. Are you drunk?
- mrb4b00, on 09/05/2008, -2/+11Unless people find a way to automatically divide up a program, having more core isn't going to improve on latency.
- almondfilter3, on 09/05/2008, -2/+10For any comments pertaining to 6 cores and "need:" a 2000 dollar processor like this = not for casual or enthusiast users. Companies with rendering needs, there you go.
- SteveMax, on 09/05/2008, -0/+8Dugg to keep you as close to zero as possible.
- tendonut, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7In my group of PC gamers, me and my brother are the only ones who've even gone dual core! Six?! This is madness!!
- TommyBoy919, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5Yes, lets go to six when the vast majority of programmers still can't effectively take advantage of two. ***** brilliant. As a previous poster alluded to, it's like the razor wars and cramming more blades onto the head. Pretty soon we'll have 16 core processors, 1 or 2 of which are actually used, and we'll be shaving with a god-damn blade packed mitt.
- Elranzer, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5Since Crysis doesn't recognize SMP, this or an 8-core or 10203-core won't run it any better than a single core.
So, no. - Reiben, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6I've been running Vista 64 since March and have not had a single issue.
- Elranzer, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5Madness?
- Psythik, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5THIS IS INTELLLLLLL!!!!!
- seandaly, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5You dolt... These CPU's are marketed for the data center, not grandma.
Honestly, unless you're running something that has been coded to take advantage of multiple cores, this won't help you. This is a server processor.
Where this makes the most impact is in the Virtualization market. I perform Virtualization consolidations for large enterprise corporations. With the L, X an E series 54XX processors, I'm averaging virtualization ratios (physical to virtual host) of 18 - to 1 on servers, and 65 - 80 to 1 with desktops w/ 2 X 4-core and 64GB RAM.
Just last month I was able to scale up 102 Windows 2003 ENT sample VM's on one HP BL460 with dual X5450's and 64GB / SAN. We did NOT run out of CPU resources, the system ran out of RAM and was really dragging on storage IO, which was a result of the 4GB SAN we had.
Honestly, it's very rare that the bottleneck we see on a system is CPU related, It's usually Memory or IO limits.
What we need is dual socket, small form-factor servers that can scale to 128GB or 256GB of extremely fast RAM. It would be nice if we could see more hardware virtualization technology on the X86 system, where you can carve up the resources at the hardware level and present resource containers to the OS.
Anyway, 6 cores should be more power efficient, given that 4 cores was compared to dual core. If Intel can release a processor that performs equal to or better than an X5450 but only consumes 45W, it's worth the $2000 to customers with power issues or cooling concerns. I'll take the power savings if nothing else. - tempusrob, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5Note that it's a Xeon. The machines that this proc goes into (or is intended to go into, anyway) almost certainly *will* use those cores.
- Zippo, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4Well, the Megahertz/Gigahertz era is now over... Before it was all about how many hertz your CPU had; now it'll be about how many cores the thing has.
- spiritditch, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4I haven't even made both cores of my dual-core max out yet on any piece or combination of software.
- Zippo, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5Um, no, it's not.
- Suits, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5The Matrix and Terminator: Judgment Day are all but assured to become reality. D:
- SuperSunny, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4Yeah, with bootcamp :P
- NanoStuff, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Companies don't pay ridiculous premiums on top-end hardware. Core 2 Quad clusters are "company" level hardware. This is targeted at the "work overtime weekends at McDonalds so I can brag to people at school how marginally more awesome my hardware is" folk.
- thakur01, on 04/27/2009, -0/+3Now if only more games took advantage of multicore processors.
- cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -0/+3That and, you can increase the clock speed with minimal effort, i.e. 2.4Ghz to 3.4Ghz requires nothing more than a few changes in the BIOS, even with generic RAM and a standard HSF. This is much the same across Intel's new C2D range, there is a lot of 'headroom' in their CPUs allowing them to be pushed to extreme limits. It's also the cheapest quad-core CPU out at roughly $200 USD. Think about what $200 USD got you a few years back and that's why people are so excited.
- tendonut, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Call me a noob, but I've been out of the hardware loop for a year now. What makes the Q6600 so much better then all the other quad-core Intels? Is it the performance/price balance?
- LawSchoolBound, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Aren't these Xeon chips just for servers and possibly high end workstations? It'll probably still be a while before consumer chips go past 4 cores.
- Zippo, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3I believe that's why Intel still makes Celerons...
- PhoenixReborn, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2If you have a bunch of programs, sure, each of the 6 cores will be used for something. That's not the issue. The problem is when a single program needs a lot of processor power but it can't get it because you've split your processor into six pieces and it's only designed to use one. Then your computer comes to a screeching halt with only a sixth of your resources being used.
- darkharmonics, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Been running Ubuntu 64 for that reason. Good support for 64 bit in linux but still not optimal if you wanna run all those games. Does pretty much everything else great. I want official support for more games before it takes over my gaming rig.
Actually some linux 32 will also recognize more. You can look up why on google. - MindTrigger, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2@scamper22
That does little or nothing to boost the performance of programs that would benefit from using multiple cores. There is a great blog entry over at Intel discussing why programmers need to get on the ball with programming correctly for multiple cores. Get it straight from the experts.
http://blogs.intel.com/research/2008/06/unwelcome_ ... - JackpotCity, on 09/05/2008, -3/+5This is like razor wars.
You beat a 3 blade razor with a 4 blade one and then top that with 5... and on and on - inactive, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2It's down to $176, put on an after market fan, do your research there are cooler than stock ones, that run quiet that are also cheap, under $40. OC it to 3.4ghz if you wish. It's just a great CPU. I build gaming PCs for my friends, I always OC the CPU w/ other great parts and have never had one go bad one me, very stable.
- philhatesyou, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2***** great. Who needs innovation when we can just cram more of the same ***** in!
- scamper22, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3or you can have multiple programs running at the same time not interfering with each other on different cores!
- texanbrit, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2You should try Opteron because context switching happens earlier in the instruction set. Also the servers are cheaper and the RAM is cheaper (DDR2 not FB-DIMMS).
- jakiao, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3God I love cores. Running web servers with lots of CPU cores makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside ^_^
- abrasion, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2Actually Crysis seemed to use SMP during my testing, one of the few.
I opened perfmon and I saw CPU 0 at an avg of 80% use, CPU 1 at around 70% use and then 2 / 3 were both being used about 15% to 20%
I'd still prefer a dual core at 4ghz though - NeoNevermore, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Your Mach10 sounds inferior to the Mach24Duo that I'm planning to buy.
- DontGiveADamn, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Six cores - no waiting, reminds me of a barber shop.
- Zippo, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2I'm looking forward to Mach10... Ten diamond-coated titanium blades scraping down your face.
- 2Bnor2B, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Are you kidding! Most games support multicore now. Additionally, titles like Supreme Commander are extremely handicapped on a single cpu.
Here are just a sample..
Company of Heroes, Crysis,World of Warcraft (really), Age of Empires III, UT3, COD4, Valves Source Engine (Portal, TF2 etc), Stalker, Oblivian, Eve Online, UT3, MOH, Bioshock, Quake Wars, WIC, Flight Sim X, Battlefield 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, BW2, Spore
As multicore PCs prevail, it will not be uncommon to see multicore be listed a minimum requirement. - ry4nsm1th, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
Really not even worth it, not rushing to the store to grab the processor with the most cores. - johnsmith3210, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Just scrape your face with a cheese grater.
- fryguy1013, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1They *can* make transistors smaller, which is why we're getting more cores now. The 6-core chip is going to be 32nm, as opposed to the 45nm we have now and the 60nm we had a year ago. However, there are problems with temperatures and efficiency at increased clock speeds, so instead of increasing clock speed with smaller transistors, they are finding ways to use more of them, which means more cores.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is