What is Digg?21 Comments
- chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Even less spam and annoyance:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/print.html
The entire article on one page. If it doesn't show correctly, copy and paste it into your address bar. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Front page digg yesterday, but I DO appreciate you linking directly to it rather than have blogspam.
- elpipetuanis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How can you say they are 10 years behind? They were were beating Intel in almost every benchmark you threw at them up until the Core 2 Duo came out, so how can you say that they are 10 years behind, I would have said that intel was behind but even then not 10 years because they obviously caught up. AMD may be behind a few month on their processes but not 10 yrs.
- z.unit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I haven't read Tom's Hardware in a long time but this article is very well done and has me wanting one.
- jdong, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Umm, the 2 core duo design is better than 4 individual cores, because at least 2 of the cores share L2 cache with each other. Combine that with something like the Linux 2.6.17 shared-cache-aware scheduler, and you can get a bit more performance out of it.
The ultimate design will be 4 cores that can fully share cache with each other, and that is coming.
AMD 4x4 is more of a hack. There is nothing fake about the Kentsfield. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I need a processor for CG rendering in 3dsmax. The benchmarks show what Kentsfield can do.
- TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Until software is written to take specific advantage of multiprocessor systems, then 1, 2, or 4 core CPUs will be an improvement, but not as significant as you would hope. Multithreading the OS is a start, but in the greater scheme of things it is the apps that take the resources and the time, not the OS.
- wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I was just excited to see L2 cache listed as "2x4096Kb" So 8M cache over 4 processors (4mb per each duo). They are definately increasing the idea of the shared cache and I am fairly sure a shared L3 cache could successfully combine those of all 4( or 10) processors in the long run.
- jdong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mooninite, yes certainly, it be nice if they did some GNU/Linux testing, even with the Core Duo / Core 2 Duos.
According to the kernel developer who wrote the patch, it boosts performance by around 5% on standard benchmarks, and I expect that would only get better when applied to the Quadro. - bigsteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bottom line, buy what you need when you need it. AMD will always have something coming down the pipe that will beat Intel, and then Intel will have something to counter that within a few months. Nanometer processes seem like today's "megahertz myth..." It's still what they do with instruction ordering and the like that will make a better chip. Just because Intel can implement a newer technology doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be better [or glitch-free and super-overclock-able right out of the box*cough*Prescott*cough*]. Another good example is DDR vs. DDR2, which seems to have finally become the mainstay in only the past 3-6 months or so; at first plagued by latency issues.
Intel's on top right now, good for them. Advancements will only lead to competition which will only mean better prices and chips for us. - daridave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're all real funny with your fanboyism. I don't care -- AMD, Intel, heck even a Cell processor lol, as long as my rig is FAST. Besides, competition is good, look at how prices are droping. Keep 'em coming !
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll wait till AMD can get smaller processes and 4 cores onto one chip. Until then, the only foreseeable computer-related purchases I have is a MacBook Pro/iPod when I graduate.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2jdong, it would be even more exciting if Tom's Hardware would run a GNU/Linux distribution and run with a modified kernel to support these cores' abilities. I'm sure the improvements would be larger.
Windows XP was never designed to run on a Kentsfield. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3People keep saying, "AMD will beat Intel," but how do they know for sure? I remember wanting to get a Core 2 Duo but many people kept saying, "No! Wait for AMD's AM2!!" months before any benchmarks even came out on the two products. Their predictions were flatout wrong.
I'll wait until I see benchmarks for 4x4, then I'll decide. - krum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What's really interesting is that these new quad core CPUs from both AMD and Intel crush the Cell in terms of practical computing power. Although the Cell's SPUs appear powerful on paper, when you actually try and make them work together you start to find out how limited that platform really is. The new quad-core CPUs do not have the problems that the SPUs have communicating with each other.
- pugfug90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Unfortunately, you'll always be waiting Jim, because there will always be something faster for Intel when Intel is behind and something faster for AMD when AMD is behind :-)
- contradictator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can't wait for those.
- lostspyder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Who cares if AMD counters? Its not going to be anywhere near a comsumer level chip anyhow. For the people who have realy wanted/needed/could actualy use all 4 cores, they had them years ago in multi-cpu setups.
- crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The main problem with Intel's version of a 4x4 is that it is only 2 duo cores built into one. Amd will beat that when they release their true 4x4 and have 4 seperate cores instead of to seperate cores like Intel's fake 4x4 cpu. The facts are out there and this has also been posted on Digg before.
- arsenic0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yea i dont understand what is so revolutionary about AMD's 4x4 setup..
Since when is putting multiple processors in a system a new thing?
They have had multi proc machines for atleast 10 years now.
The big breakthrough's are putting multiple chips onto ONE chip at a reasonable price.
I am not sure what AMD hopes to prove with their 4X4 setup, that their engineer's are 10 years behind the times? - h3xley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3LOL AMD aren't even at 65nm yet, and intel is slated to move to 45nm halfway through next year. AMD are getting their asses handed to them however way u want to spin it
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is