AMD: You Want More Cores? OK, You've Got It!

[Marcus Yam]

Yes, Of Course More CPU Cores are Better!

AMD: You Want More Cores? OK, You've Got It! : Read more

 

[nforce4max]

You can add cores till they are looked at as we do gpus today but performance per core really needs to improve and at the hardware level there needs to be in place a mechanism to fool an app or os to think that it is on one or several but fewer than there really is while the work load is shared over several cores at once. Why is simple most apps ect max out 1-4 threads/cores and do not take advantage of this. I would like to see a dual socket platform being aimed for consumer use that is much more friendly.

 

[neoverdugo]

Whoa!!! Imagine what will happen when AMD implements its on the home-based desktop clientele. Having more cores can be more efficient in a high level. I gotta upgrade my PC junk (even though it has been nearly 5 years now)
I wonder what will be Intel's counter-offer besides Sandy-bridge?

 

[Guest]

You obviously don't know anything about distributed computing, engineering or programming in general. Go read a few books on the subject, or take some classes, then make comments.

 

[ricardok]

I really wish that MS/Linx variations/OSX created a SO that would see all this cores as one so that ANY app can be used (even if it's not enhanced to multi-cores) and the OS takes care of the 'virtualization'...

 

[coopchennick]

[citation]Instead of ramping up clock speed, the processor industry is moving towards putting more cores inside of computer chips. We all find this to be a good thing,...[/citation]

Wrong. People have been somewhat vocal about rather having ramped up clock speeds than more cores. Oh well though, now we are just waiting until coding will actually make good use of the cores.

 

[BulkZerker]

Honestly who needs more than 2-3 cores for general usage? Id love to have a octa core which would allow me to run a Dedicated server on top of a game but let's be honest. The 140 watt processors are just too hot to run in a oem type setup at anything over half load for extended periods of time.

 

[FLanighan]

lol too bad an intel 6 core > amd 12 core

lmao

 

[zachary k]

what ever happened to clockrate? or are we just ignoring that and just going for more cores.

 

[schmich]

[citation][nom]Flanighan[/nom]lol too bad an intel 6 core > amd 12 core lmao[/citation]You wanted to point out > in price right?

 

[photog10]

meh..AMD has long been out of the picture..after the i7 took off, AMD just can't stay in the game..As much as I would love an AMD option, i7 is the right choice. If you look at benchmarks, there's no product that will stand up to the i7..it's a shame really. WAKE UP AMD!!!

 

[doomsdaydave11]

The reason that clock speeds have plateaued over the last 5 years is simply a physical limitation. It's very difficult to get a chip to go past 3.5 ghz at stock, which is why we saw the switch to dual cores after P4's.

Unless we see a major hardware change in the next 5 years, in 2015 you can expect to see 12 core chips at ~3.0Ghz making it into the mainstream.

 

[superjunaid]

This article is apparently geared towards businesses and professionals working on workstations rather than consumers using computers to read the news, write emails and create documents in word.

Faster cpus with 2-4 cores is more what consumers want. But for businesses and server environments more cores make sense.

 

[ares1214]

Well, theres this stuff called graphene that will push CPU clock speed to 25 GHz, and eventually to 1 THz. But until then, more cores, or rather more efficient cores is the best bet. However, AMD and Intel can add as many cores as they want, but software needs to take better advantage of them. If the software was more core friendly, we would be seeing the 1090T beat the i7 more and more often. Although AMD needed a new arch. They need more performance per core, not more cores, or atleast not until they are taken advantage of better. For those who say 6 core intel>12 core AMD, while it is true, lets not forget on a per core basis, Intels 6 cores can cost 2x more than AMD's 12 cores.

 

[southernshark]

I'm loving my 6 core AMD, and can't wait for 16.....

While I agree with the people who would prefer more GHZ, I also see the wisdom in adding more cores. At some point, our desk top PC will be capable of all sorts of things that current models just can't do. Of course I am talking about AI.... and that will need more cores....

Also I reckon to a phaze in the industry. We were adding more GHZ, now we are adding more cores. Once we get 100+ cores, I reckon they will shift back into making those cores faster. Its all a matter of time.

 

[Marco925]

[citation][nom]Flanighan[/nom]lol too bad an intel 6 core > amd 12 core lmao[/citation]
based on what testing did you find that from?

 

[K-zon]

Having more cores is nice but the software to utlizie it is there or it isnt, One thing though that hopefully is open is if the software cant utilize the different cores, maybe the user can utilize more software over the more cores getting the acheivements meet in some form or another. The software would have to be agmentive of shift in protocols over the cores to find whats best to run it and with in conjuction of other software at sometimes and still maintain some of the same features. The question is now more then anything, since you have the hardware capacity where is your visually going with it? And with the idea of Visual, the complete UI experience of using the features and new hardware and software. And i gotta further put in the UI idea given im using it very losely. The UI, Your internet browser, maybe itunes, and lets AVG, and lets put in some kinda of optional program, Word or maybe even a game. To be more say multi-interface ready, Photoshop or Gimp, Some HTP program, maybe a photobucket or flickr account, Facebook, Video/photo collection program and organizer, Hardware optimization programs for setting the speed or transfer for quality and batch working. Either way, this is all on on monitor.
With all these new hardware, 12 cores cpus, 2-4 gpus, intergrated processing for voltage controls and power consumption and etc. 4-24gs memory. YOu need a monitor to work with all these so you can get some of the greater benefits of newer tech under some control to what you need it for.
Heck, they even have multiple monitor support somewhere. Rather one decent sized monitor or having more then one fits the bill is hard telling. Either way, bigger screen space for UIs usages is the outcome of these greatly. Otherwise you are stuck with a taskbar function of need to use these things, and not saying that a taskbar isnt needed, just when actually using it sometimes even on modest means, it is very short coming. And to sit and say that adding another taskbar is any more help is like saying, since i can tie my shoe, im going to add a second shoelace to my shoe and make it a double helx tie with it. Which is fine, but time taken and benefits aside, tiing my show with one shoelice always fit the bill nicley and adequetly. Its not till getting more Screen space to work with that needing the second shoelace is needed with the double helx tie. Either way, the consumers that that tend to have this tech tends to all the tech, and not much an issue.
Either way, good innovations and nice products, should keep up the work.

 

[scimanal]

"Many customers have told me that they have a rule of “one VM per core”, so with 12-core processors"

1 cpu core per vm? wow... that is one dangerous rule of thumb... There are generally three resources to think about in regards to a virtual machine, cpu, memory, and disk... each application will stress these and other resources differently.

 

[hunter315]

Too bad this data only really reflects enterprise systems but that is where the vast majority of their money is made so i guess its fair, i just hope they can ramp up per core performance for those of us who dont have the means to get a 2P system with 24 cores.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Great for business, waste of time for home users. Really, I don't know alot about how applications a run, but there needs to be more communication between the app and the operating system. That is, let the operating system decide on how many cores/threads to run an application on. Applications shouldn't be just written to load up 1 or 2 cores when an operating system could tell you there's 4, 6, 8 or 12 available to take the load off.

 

[number13]

It's a sales pitch because ramping up clock speeds is harder

 

[Gin Fushicho]

This si nice, but I'd still prefer efficiency.

 

[builderbobftw]

Ironic, We wanted faster cores.

Us: "AMD, we need faster cores! Many applications can't use 6 of them!"

AMD: "Have 16 of them! Clocked at 1.8ghz, costing 1,000$, and with 512mb cache a core!"

 

[bear_jesus]

But with bulldozer the core's will be better ass well so better performance per core and even more core's. how could anyone see that as a bad thing for servers but also the future of desktops as more software and games use more core's.

 

[blueomni]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Great for business, waste of time for home users. Really, I don't know alot about how applications a run, but there needs to be more communication between the app and the operating system. That is, let the operating system decide on how many cores/threads to run an application on. Applications shouldn't be just written to load up 1 or 2 cores when an operating system could tell you there's 4, 6, 8 or 12 available to take the load off.[/citation]

JOSHKORN, you say you don't know alot about how apps run, so I must tell you that your idea, although logical, it does not work. Apps do not run that way, the OS does not control directly the number of threads an app uses, it just controls de access to the resources (CPU, RAM, Disk, etc).

When you design an application you must decide if it will be single-threaded or multi-threaded, and how many threads you'll need for the app to get the job done. It's not straightforward, and tou can even code an appliclation to create more threads if need.

When you use a multithreaded application, the OS then has the capacity to distribute your app threads across the CPU cores. But that's it!

For home and office use (web, office, gaming...) you don't much cores, 4 should be enough for the majority of common tasks. Only specific tasks need more power (3D Studio Max, Photoshop, etc...).

For enterprise use, the more cores the best, specially when paired with 24+ GB RAM and some enterprise level storage.


I hope I was not too boring, but more important, I hope you understood de concept.