What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
86 Comments
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -2/+30yes who would have thought that doubling numbers would work the same in a different situation?? remarkable!
- tonycomputerguy, on 02/10/2009, -0/+27Dugg for the acronym of the conference having more letters than cores in Intels new CPU. IEEEISSCC
- JoshFester, on 02/09/2009, -0/+22that's a lot of transistors!
- AngelBunny, on 02/09/2009, -1/+20yah binary has a lot to do with it but not in its entirety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law - fcrow, on 02/09/2009, -6/+241 2 4 8 next 16 32 64 128 256 512? Sounds like how the computers memory evolved.
- AngelBunny, on 02/09/2009, -3/+17they are not lieing at all. intel has some slimy business practices but the true slow down in computing comes from transferring the information, not processing it. putting 80 cores in a processor may be possible but it is near pointless. the pipelines would bottleneck before all 80 cores could be productive. think of memory as the roads or highways and the cores as the business buildings. put to much together and you get traffic jams. (terrible analogy i know)
- ripple123, on 02/10/2009, -0/+13well, 100 billion brain cells in the human brain, and 18 months per doubling of transistor counts, as per moores law, id give it 7 years till we have a processor that has a transistor for every brain cell in the human brain. its not really a rigorous comparison, but it gives you the idea that the magnitudes are starting to line up, for a AI as good as a human.
- Gizza, on 02/10/2009, -0/+11Hahaha, here we have the perfect example of someone who knows complete ***** all about software development.
- danjal, on 02/10/2009, -0/+11now all we need is the right software to use them with, remember when the software was ahead of the hardware? didn't that all change.
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -0/+8I told you so..
~ Moore. - shredswithpiks, on 02/10/2009, -0/+7^ Very debatable, especially with how applications such as folding@home (this is just one example) run a gazillion (this is a hyperbole) times faster on my 600mhz 8800gts than my 3.2ghz core2duo.
It's all dependent on what your doing with the processors. From my point of view technology is moving in a direction that would give GPGPUs the advantage.
You're opinion may be different. We'll have to see what happens over the next 5 years.
My opinion mirror's dattaway's though - inactive, on 02/10/2009, -1/+8This is clearly over 9000.
- Jeremyz0r, on 02/10/2009, -1/+7I dugg you up for a valid question.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...
Check out the 395 user reviews. (365 gave it 5 out of 5) 920 i7 - KibibyteBrain, on 02/10/2009, -0/+5But they have totally different causes. Memory evolves as powers of two because of the nature of multiplexing and addressing inherently having log(2)(N) control lines for N addresses. So if you need to route an extra control line/address line(the hard part), might as well back it up with a full complement of memory.
CPUs are seeing exponential growth in transistor count, as predicted by Moore's Law, but there is really no good reason for them to follow powers of two. AMD for example has triple core processors, and they are just as effective design wise as quad cores, albiet with less processing power. There is a case to even-numbered cores though due to natural symmetries in VLSI layout. What does matter is that the transistor count keeps going up, and the easiest way to do that at this time is to just copy and past more cores onto the die. - Culyt, on 02/10/2009, -0/+5I wounder if we will see 7 or 6 core systems from manufacturing faults. Like how there are tri-core AMD systems.
- charbo187, on 02/10/2009, -0/+5I'm happy with my Q8200 :~)
but how are things on the core i7 side? Really that much more powerful? - jonathandyer, on 02/10/2009, -0/+4Very likely. Even some of AMD's dual core Phenom CPU's are just quad cores with 2 deactivated/faulty cores shut off.
- kamisama, on 02/10/2009, -0/+4For burning faster you'd need a faster drive, not a faster cpu. Current cpu's hardly go over 10% cpu use when burning at top speed.
- morphboy23, on 02/10/2009, -1/+5Goddamn, how many cores do we need?
Well, I, for one, am certainly willing to find out. - daridave, on 02/10/2009, -0/+4People under-estimate the difficulty of hardware evolution. While it's happening and it's happening fast, I admit I would love to have 32 cores right now, but I don't mind doing the jump from 4 to 8, 16 and 32... for a simple reason; everything needs to follow, otherwise you'll have hardware bottlenecks, lack of power (PSU-related) or simply overheating issues. I'd rather the industry (not just Intel) takes it slow, do their respective homework and we don't end up with endless compatibility (both software and hardware) issues.
- BlackKnight6, on 02/10/2009, -1/+5I think its more about 80 core cpus actually being an affordable product for the consumer market....
- fandyllic, on 02/10/2009, -0/+3Multi-core is just the HW industry's way of saying, "We boosted the transistors to try to keep pace with Moore's Law, but if you want extra performance, it's now the SW industry's job to keep up."
- dattaway, on 02/10/2009, -1/+4I'm waiting until we start using GPU's for most applications.
- CommandoJoe, on 02/10/2009, -0/+3Depends on what you are doing...
- agent42, on 02/10/2009, -0/+3For all you people complaining about "nothing will work with 8 cores" you are wrong. I work at a TV post production facility as the unfortunate soul who has to render footage day-in day-out. We already use our 8-core macs for every cpu cycle they are worth. Having a dual 8-core (16 cores total) would really help us in speeding things up even further.
- ripple123, on 02/10/2009, -0/+3you, sir, just stated the absolutely obvious. as did i.
- RogerMcDodger, on 02/10/2009, -0/+3Mechanical parts will always be a bottleneck.
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -0/+3Who cares at this point whos system really runs slow. Time to get more efficient on the software side... On a side note id overclock that.
- lateralus, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2So you think they're cool too huh?
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2cpu's and gpu's both excel at different tasks. cpu's are excellent at doing sequential operations, and gpu's are excellent at doing a massive number parallel calculations. We will definitely see the 2 working together in the future, but both excel at different things.
- ripple123, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2like i said, not really a rigorous comparison.
- marsinfur, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2It's never goiing to be enough ! Thanks to that Indian genius, Vinod Dham who actually invented the damn "Pentium"l chip and Flash Memory and hasn't stopped ever since.. We are hitting the "Terminator Age" soon more chips and AI by 2010:)
- shredswithpiks, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2I wouldn't trust blackheart's review. What game is he (she?) playing that you would notice a tremendous difference between a really really fast CPU and a really really really fast CPU? Games are so video-card bound these days anyway... I don't buy it.
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -1/+3287 million.
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2@Jeremyz0r.
It IS much. You're looking at processor frequency and that's a mistake.
The i7 is 33% more efficient than the C2Q equivalent. So if you have a C2Q at 2.66 and an i7 at 2.66, the i7 is 1/3 faster.
So not only is it higher frequency, it's vastly higher efficiency and in any benchmark it will DESTROY any other chip on the market. Plus the 920 regularly hits 4.0 on good air. - lateralus, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2Take Core 2 Duo and multiply by 4.
- LowROI, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2Octocore processors!
- inactive, on 02/11/2009, -0/+2It is certainly a snappy system, but it is hard to draw a direct comparison to my previous system, at least based on just cpu alone. (since every other variable has changed)
My previous system was a q6600 with 4gb of ddr2 800/8800gts 320/ on an abit ip35 pro mobo running vista 32.
Current system is the i7 920/ p6t deluxe/ gtx 280/ 6gb of ddr3 1600 running vista 64 on a raid 0 of two 320gb 7200rpm drives.
Overall it is a much snappier system, game performance is much better, but this is likely mainly due to the better gfx card.
Boots up much faster but again this would be raid 0.
Unzipping large files, rar archives, and so on is much snappier, which would be attributable to both the cpu and the increased disk performance of raid 0.
It is much faster at converting between different video formats, I am not sure if the GPU comes into play there.
Adobe application performance greatly increased, but I also have gpu acceleration coming into play there.
Overall it multitasks VERY well. I am happy with what I got.
My previous system was actually pretty nice too.
I would have kept it had UPS not destroyed it in the process of shipping it to my new home (I flew cross country here).
After hearing all the hoopla about the i7 and needing a new system, I didn't want to just go back to what I had, or something slightly better. So I gave into temptation and splurged. The only thing that bites is that I had to get a super high end board that I have not even come close to utilizing the features of, such as the overclocking ability and extra PCIe slots. I would like to do the overclocking thing, but need better cooling solutions (on stock right now) and buying even more equipment isn't my priority right now (new car is).
However, I must say it is nice to be able to jump right into a web browser/skype when booting up the machine (There is a mini linux OS built into motherboard that u can jump into immediately). Of course I keep my machine constantly running so that does not really get used much. - raz98, on 02/11/2009, -0/+2We need more software that is multi threaded, is a shame that at this point there aren't so many programs that can take advantage of a 2 or 4 core processor. I heard the excuse : "we are at beginning, wait a while, games, program that are multithreaded will appear soon". I heard this from 1999-2000 when the first accessible dual cpu options appeared. But as of today, most software doesn't know how to use a multi cpu or multi core computer. Even specialized applications like 3D or 2D editing have their flaws, they don't use all the cores, or if they do, they don't always use them at full capacity.
- inactive, on 02/10/2009, -1/+3Meh, I am happy with my i7 920
- directrix13, on 02/10/2009, -0/+2Because you are using Windows.
- CommandoJoe, on 02/11/2009, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the hard drive could keep up... Lets assume a relatively low 20 megabyte per second write speed (And if someone has an 8 core processor, they will most likely have a much faster HD..) X 60 seconds per minute X 15 minutes = roughly 18 gigabytes. Even at half that speed it is still more than fast enough, even if it is a dual layer dvd...
- Kamujin, on 02/10/2009, -0/+1Not everyone spent the last 10 years playing with web browser technologies. While concurrent and parallel programming skills are not very common in "popular" areas of software development, anyone worth a damned in my industry has been doing this kind of work for years now.
- specialK16, on 02/10/2009, -0/+1Why? Seriously. A CPU is much much capable of doing all kind of tasks. A GPU might be way faster, but only with a small set of tasks.
Hurr durr, gaemahn. - bri719, on 02/11/2009, -0/+1mind these 2 words: burnt penis
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/22/man_burns_ ...
8 cores... holy smokes that might cover my entire ballsac and then some. - MrViklund, on 02/10/2009, -0/+1Probably not.
The 2.3 billion number probably include transistors for cache, memory controller etc not just the transistors for the core itself. The reason why this 2.3 billion number isn't interesting is because you can just lump together as many cores as you want and make a CPU that has a trillion transistors. What's the point in that. The interesting data would be to know hoe many transistors each core consist of. - cnldelta, on 03/04/2009, -0/+1If ya can't double the number of transistors in one core on the CPU, just double the cores on a CPU to keep Moore's Law alive.
- Jeremyz0r, on 02/10/2009, -0/+1"Intel will discuss in more detail a 45 nm 8-core “Enterprise” Xeon processor, which carries 2.3 billion transistors." Xeon processors are made for servers, not gaming.
From wikipedia: "Xeon brand refers to many families of Intel's x86 multiprocessing CPUs – for dual-processor (DP) and multi-processor (MP) configuration on a single motherboard targeted at non-consumer markets of server and workstation computers, and also at blade servers and embedded systems." - imprestavel, on 02/10/2009, -0/+1wat?
- MrViklund, on 02/10/2009, -0/+1Well, that does not tell you anything and is not very interesting at all. It's an 8 core CPU, of course it will have allot of transistors.
The more interesting data is how any transistors each individual core has. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is