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.
85 Comments
- parestrep, on 06/02/2009, -1/+48Its Istanbul not Constantinople.
- dfreit808, on 08/10/2009, -0/+46heat.
- randypanda, on 06/02/2009, -4/+48BECAUSE IT WOULD CAUSE A RIP IN THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM WHICH WOULD FORCE ME TO TYPE IN LOWER CASE.
- handheldchimp, on 06/02/2009, -0/+35We finally get a story Digg was meant for, and all of you crap on it with your ***** comments. Shame on you.
- schmidt349, on 06/02/2009, -0/+23Why did Constantinople get the works?
- deweyhewson, on 06/02/2009, -1/+23Screw those Digg-shortened links.
http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3571 - ChileanGoD, on 06/02/2009, -1/+21Intel tried to go that way but they failed miserably, it's not technically achievable. That's when AMD got a lot of market share with a more efficient design.... Until Intel got their senses back and started to beat the crap out of AMD again.
- neoquietus, on 06/02/2009, -0/+20It's nobody's business but the turks!
- navidb, on 06/02/2009, -5/+21I'm not too adept with technology, why can't they make a single core....like 15 ghz? Don't flame me, I don't know.
- hosehead16, on 06/02/2009, -1/+13This statement is so misguided I hardly know where to begin.
"Server processor, aka: We can't hack it on the desktop market because our single thread performance blows."
AMD has always released their server chips first, and then the desktop chips a short time later. They did it with the first Phenom quads, the second ones, and they're doing it again with the 6 core chips.
"And I don't give a flying flip about performance per watt, that's just a rationale for saying "yeh, our chips are slower, but they don't suck as much juice.""
You don't care about that but you bet your ass server admins do. When you run many of these chips every day every power saving you can get counts. Power consumption matters much more in servers than raw performance.
"You know what I want from AMD? A 4ghz, 5ghz and 6ghz core. When the cores get to 6ghz, I'll upgrade to a 6 core chip. Until then... it's all just a waste of time. Break the dang 3ghz barrier, k? Just do it. Stop trying to skirt around the problem with more cores, what I want is better single thread performance."
They already broke the 3ghz barrier with the X4 940 and 955, at 3.0 and 3.2 respectively. - Aigan, on 06/02/2009, -0/+10If you have the money, than the most powerful architecture on the market right now is Intel's LGA-1336, with the i7 CPUs. It was just released about 2-3 months ago, so it will be current for another year or so. It is currently more powerful than most of AMD's chip offerings, but it is also a bit more expensive (MOBO + CPU = >$420).
For AMD, their newest socket is the AM3, which is still an awesome choice, especially if you are on a budget. To be 100% future-proof (relatively), make sure your motherboard supports DDR3 ram, b/c not all AM3 boards do. Couple that with a new Phenom II tri/quad core, and you got a formidable machine.
It should also be noted that the Opteron is a server-optimized chip, like the Xenon. It makes sense to have 6 cores in a server setup, but I would MUCH prefer an quicker 4 core for my gaming setup.
Also, it doesn't matter when you buy your system, it WILL be outdated in a couple months. But, that doesn't mean you have to have all the latest stuff. I bought my computer over 2 years ago, and am still running on a C2D e6600 (2.4ghz 2-core) and an 8800gt. I average about 100-150 FPS in Team Fortress 2 on max settings, and can play Crysis decently well on high. - inactive, on 06/02/2009, -3/+13how about you clowns let software run my quad core to it's full potential first
- COLstriker, on 06/02/2009, -1/+10Been a long time gone, Constantinople
- DrHoliday, on 06/02/2009, -3/+12It's more efficient to have multiple cores at slower clockspeeds. Think about it - one core, no matter how fast, still is limited to doing one computation at a time. Multiple cores aren't. Those two cores can easily out-compute a faster single core while using less energy.
...And that's what this whole thing is about, really. More Ghz is certainly possible, but the extra heat and power consumption it entailed forced manufacturers to shift to multi-core processors. - jasmus, on 06/02/2009, -0/+8Tried that, wizard crashed.
- zaffir, on 06/02/2009, -2/+9Hmm, yes, blame the evil, evil programmers and their anti-multi-core conspiracy. That's obviously the only rational explanation for this. I mean, enabling multi-core processing in an application is just a checkbox in Microsoft's "make a program!" wizard.
/s - Aigan, on 06/02/2009, -1/+8I doubt it.
The number of cores does not make a large difference in single/dual core-optimized games. It's the speed of each core that matters.
So, take that, Internet Meme. - Zap2, on 06/02/2009, -0/+6Yup because Ghz measure speed!
You take your 3.0Ghz(its a P4 though), I'll take a Core 2 chip... - neoquietus, on 06/02/2009, -4/+10Light speed delay. At gigahertz speeds, the distance light travels (and thus the quickest any information can travel) is close to the size of the chip itself. Once you add in all the gate delays that are caused by having the chip do actual work, you end up with the situation where the cpu is trying to execute instructions that rely on the previous instructions, but their hasn't been enough time for the result of the previous instruction to make it back to the start of the instruction processor.
- OrangeTide, on 06/02/2009, -0/+5UltraSPARC T1 from Sun about 3 years ago was shipping with 4, 6 or 8 cores on one die. Although the T1 could only work in a single socket configuration it otherwise is equivalent to AMD's "Direct Connection Architecture" because the T1 had 4 DDR memory controllers on die. The T2 could interface to at least one other processor and likely up to four. But I don't think Sun every made motherboard with such a configuration.
I'm just pointing out that AMD's marketing speak is trying to narrowly define their "World's First" to sound more impressive. I would still rather have the AMD chip over the T1 or T2, even if their marketing is a little sleazy. - Traiklin, on 06/02/2009, -2/+7yeah I do
- zaffir, on 06/02/2009, -2/+7Your first statement is completely wrong. If I have a single core that gets 20 times as many things done in a second as each of your four cores, I'm still way faster than you. 50 486 cores won't outdo a Core 2 Duo, even though there's 25 times as many of them. You also have to consider the fact that not all problems can be computed in parallel, and there is overhead and difficulty associated with doing so.
But you're right that the advantage of multi-core processors is in the area of practicality and economics on the hardware side. It's way cheaper and more efficient- in pretty much every way except for the software side- to add another core, than it is to crank the clock speed way up. - Traiklin, on 06/02/2009, -0/+5it can but only at 20fps on ultra, so it's an improvement!
- jkaechler, on 06/02/2009, -1/+6that is the best explanation here.... and i think its the most accurate as well.
the rip in space-time is more awesome tho. - everlast88, on 06/02/2009, -0/+5yes, but can it run doom?
- Lewie, on 06/02/2009, -0/+4I just built a new system around February. It's a e5200 (dual core, 2.5Ghz stock) OCed to 3.06Ghz with a 9800GTX+. Sure it was outdated before I bought it, but for $450 including a Lian Li case, it's not a bad price to run all current games at max. Though I do wish I had the extra $100 to buy a quad-core. The computer it replaced was a 4 year old AMD64 3000+ and 6800GT, which was $1100 when new. Of course I'd love a Core i7 like my friend built, but he spent over double what I did (i7 920 and ATI HD4870).
Until AMD catches up with Intel's high-end, Intel's Core i7's will stay relatively expensive. So it really depends on what you can afford. I doubt we'll see more than 8 cores within the next year or two. It'll probably take that long before most games/apps start to become optimized for more than 2 cores.
A quad-core Core 2 or tri/quad AM3 would be great on a budget. It would definitely get you through the next 2-3 years, and you'd spend near half of what a Core i7 system would cost. By then, the next gen will be out or on its way, so you could build a top-end Core i7, or spend more on the next gen. There will always be something better on the horizon. If you can wait, wait. If you're really itching for a new computer, don't let yourself suffer much longer. - nurbsenvi, on 06/02/2009, -2/+6If I had an answer to that I wouldn't be sitting here wasting time on digg.
- neoquietus, on 06/02/2009, -0/+4A quad core based system will be good for quite some time. It is expected that the number of cores on a CPU at a particular price point will double about every 18~24 months.
- bobbknight, on 06/02/2009, -0/+4You have found a way to get around Quantum effects, dude your gone be richer than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
- Ommatidia, on 06/02/2009, -0/+4It's no secret.
The hex-core Opterons are able to compete w/the quad-core Xeons; and are priced similarly.
Unfortunately, they get absolutely spanked by the hex-core Xeons.
Currently, the environment in the desktop CPU arena is similar. AMD has desktop chips out that compete well against Intels older, core2 architecture. But, unfortunately, can't really compete with core i7.
It'll be a happy day when AMD has chips out that can compete with Intel's highest-end stuff. But, that day is still a long way off. - Reziarfg, on 06/02/2009, -0/+42001 called. They want their microprocessor architecture mentality back.
- PixelMagic, on 06/02/2009, -0/+4Sexcore?
- JasonvonEvil, on 06/02/2009, -0/+3Dude, not even Deep Blue could run that thing. :p
- ThunderGodNick, on 06/02/2009, -0/+3I would think that another way to put it is that you can only shove so much in a little space (Information processing that is) before it becomes a issue.
That and I always was under the assumption that heat was a major issue (due to Light speed delay, I guess) and they had to jump to Doubling up. - Barackalypse, on 06/02/2009, -0/+3Next time can I get half the cores, but twice the Ghz please? I'll take my dual core system at 4 Ghz over a quad core from the same generation at 2.8 Ghz for nearly all common tasks I do (exceptions being video encoding and SQL Server)
- jkaechler, on 06/02/2009, -0/+3do do dooo, do do dodooty dooooo.......
- inactive, on 06/02/2009, -0/+3Sun is always 10 years ahead on technology, but not exactly affordable for my personal use. I can buy 12 AMD procs for the price of one UltraSPARC.
- inactive, on 06/02/2009, -0/+3Thank you. That was most helpful.
- Dougman82, on 06/02/2009, -0/+2In the defense of said "clowns," they are the hardware guys. It's not really their field to make sure all the software out there takes advantage of multiple cores.
- Dougman82, on 06/02/2009, -0/+2Unfortunately, the big money lies in the server market, where lots of cores make more sense than a couple of really fast ones. Result: the current CPU architectures don't focus as much on faster individual cores. Especially since packing multiple really fast cores together creates a huge heat dissipation problem.
- Dougman82, on 06/02/2009, -0/+2Also, there's the problem of diminishing returns. As speed gets increased, problems like heat dissipation and data errors due to the likes of parasitic capacitance and transistor gate leakage grow at perhaps an exponential rate. The result is that incremental speed increases become less and less feasible.
Add to that the fact that noticeable speed increases become harder. Upping the clock from 1.0GHz to 1.5GHz makes a much more noticeable difference than upping from 3.0GHz to 3.5GHz. - Ommatidia, on 06/02/2009, -0/+2Yes, in fact you should have for a dedicated SQL Server machine. Even a lowly dual-core will max out the memory bandwidth on a db machine. But, neither one of those are likely to come into play, because disk IO will be so comparatively slow (unless you're running some Fiber connected SAN, which isn't likely).
As far as your workstation goes, single-threaded applications are pretty much nonexistent at this point. So, unless you do very little multitasking and are looking to save money, there really aren't any positives (besides cost) to skimping on cores. - mattsull, on 06/02/2009, -1/+3They already broke the ghz barrier with the dual and quad phenom 2s
- bipolarruledout, on 06/02/2009, -0/+2so was xp, and 2000, and NT...and....
- Phi01, on 06/02/2009, -1/+3Can someone explain which will be better Intels i7 core or this AMD opteron?
- Ommatidia, on 06/02/2009, -1/+3@blastek
Are you really sure that we aren't (for the most part) already there? Most CPU-intensive apps got multi-core updates a long time ago.
Furthermore, I'm running Windows 7 and just opened up a bunch of random apps; they all utilized all four of my cores (pretty evenly, too). It may be because of Windows 7, but I think we are already there. - FauOz, on 06/02/2009, -0/+1I have a quad Mac and a quad PC and I still keep a book next to the computer to read while I wait for it. So whats instantaneous in the computer world?
- Lewie, on 06/03/2009, -0/+1You caught me. I've never tried Crysis, and I don't put AA over 2x, but I do run my games at 1680x1050 on High (TF2, L4D). Besides Crysis, I'd be surprised to find a game that goes below 30fps with the above conditions.
- nonymous666, on 06/02/2009, -0/+1Says AMD's marketing dept. phphphtt.
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is