Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

INTEL'S QUAD CORE CHIP MAY FALL SHORT

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 2, 2006 12:16:50 AM

According to this article, Cloverton will be a mess in performance. 8)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/124900
March 2, 2006 12:20:02 AM

lol another thread to start the arguing, tally ho!

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2006 12:54:39 AM

4 sharing one bus is too much - thats why intel uses DIB, and pentium m isnt as fsb hungry as P4's

and yeah this will prolly start another war lol
Related resources
March 2, 2006 1:11:01 AM

i'll tell you what i don't get, is the people that buy dual dual core computers, if they haven't even optimized dual core software yet, why the hell do you need two dual cores, or in this case 4 cores, like what are you going to do, play fear, bf2, and encode a dvd, listen to music, virus scan, defrag, and whatever else you might want to do

also, i don't think single core should die, because they can fit more transistors in a single core, and therefore make it fatser than a dual core, so if you don't plan on multitasking, shouldn't you have the option to get an ultra fast single core like the fx-57 or in the future, some other uber cpu?
March 2, 2006 1:15:42 AM

i just had a thought while sitting on the can after writing my last post, if they assigned the 2 cores to different processes in the program or game i guess it would be faster, there goes my last point lol :oops: 
March 2, 2006 1:26:34 AM

I have been using dual processor workstations for years.
Many programs have been optimized for it for many years before I started using it.
And it makes the whole system perk up performance wise.
March 2, 2006 1:29:35 AM

no, i get dual processors, but not 2 dual core processors, as in quad core, but on to cpu's.
March 2, 2006 1:40:08 AM

In the normal user desktop environment, Quad-Core CPU's are totally worthless, and in my opinion, will always be. Unless you need to use Internet Explorer, Listen to music, play 7 games, convert 3 movies, hack into the white house, and jack off to porn at once, you don't need Quad-Core in desktop environment.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 2, 2006 1:56:29 AM

what should you get if you just want to jack off to porn :wink: :lol: 
March 2, 2006 2:03:36 AM

Heated lotions and oils.
March 2, 2006 2:03:37 AM

Well, for that, you need the following:

AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 Overclocked to 3.5GHz
2GB of PC4000 OCZ Overclocked to 400MHz @ 800MHz effective w/ 0-0-0-0 timings
64 Western Digital 150GB Raptors in RAID 0
Linux Fedora 64-Bit
$200 Sound Card w/ 10.2 (yes, .2!) Surround Sound Speakers
30" Apple Cinema LCD Screen
Quad 7900GTX in SLI @ 1GHz core and 2GHz Memory

That is the best system for Pr0n!

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
March 2, 2006 2:23:00 AM

that makes sense, cause you don't want distorted porn, so go high end, and you also want to watch it in its full glory so you NEED the 30in lcd, and for high res on that thing you sure do need quad sli 7900,s, nothing else will do! :wink:
March 2, 2006 2:51:13 AM

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29962

That's because Clovertown will resurrect problems like cache snooping over the front side bus, contention for FSB access and an overworked memory controller.

However, AMD got the approach to multicore processors right from the start, he said. Both cores can share the onboard memory controller and HT links - so avoiding the "gymnastics" of Intel's approach.
March 2, 2006 3:57:15 AM

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more man. I mentioned something about this in another thread. Computers today are really more than what we really need. I mean think about it, how much more speed do we really need in our homes?
March 2, 2006 4:04:03 AM

Exactly Lumi, I mean, you can't have any faster than Instantaneous and we're pretty much there already. If I had a processor w/ 100 Cores, I don't know what I would do with it...I sure as hell wouldn't use the damn thing. I was just thinking of something too, having 100 cores may be great, but this brings up a HUGE problem: CPU Sockets and Motherboards. Is Intel planning on having 100 CPU cores go to 1 memory bank? That's funny, and if they plan to add in Quad Channel memory, and add in multiple banks per CPU, you're talking THOUSANDS of CPU Pins required, imagine it, Socket 10,000, LOL! That's what they're going to need if they keep the same CPU design they have now.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2006 5:47:14 AM

atleast its not 4 P4's on a single die unless there goal is an all purpose barbique, yonah and onward communicate through L1 and L2, but you never know what Intel might do with conroe and onward cause its a whole new cpu just about, but i doubt they fixed the issue due to the fact its using the same board and chipset (they make a god dam new one every month, why not make a god dam new fsb at the same time god dammit).

Perhaps intels excuse for a cpu is four slow cores = one fast core (multithreaded only) LOL

They can get a man on the mood but they cant give a processor a new fsb!

What are they trying to do, cherish there glorious FSB memories?

On the other hand intels always had a craptacular FSB design - P3's SDR bus was taking on AMD with DDR fsb, P4 for a while was slightly better and once again AMD has a better FSB, if history repeats it will be years before intel uses a better FSB.
March 2, 2006 8:14:38 AM

From the link I posted b4, I think they are going 2 run out of mhz for cores. So the only thing they can do it make dual/quad and higher cores on smaller dies. When programers add that into there code it should make for some very fast processing power.
March 2, 2006 2:47:43 PM

Quote:
they are going 2 run out of mhz for cores.


Oh please don't word it like that! Just kidding. . .


I agree with Mike, unless the way software and OSes work changes dramatically there will be a point soon at which adding additional cores will no longer be of any benefit.
March 2, 2006 3:18:46 PM

This is my first post in this forum so please be kind. :-)

Unless I am mistaken, XP pro and 2000 Pro only support 1-2 CPU cores in their normal distribution. You usually have to purchase server and/or Enterprise editions of software to utilize more than two CPUs.

I might upgrade to a dual core AMD64 the next time I upgrade, but I don't think it is necessary. It will just depend on the price point. (I will probably look for a used Socket 939 setup with SLi capabilities. I'm pretty sure I will be seeing a lot of them on eBay by the end of the year.)

Regards,
kcmac
March 2, 2006 3:37:26 PM

Quote:
i'll tell you what i don't get, is the people that buy dual dual core computers, if they haven't even optimized dual core software yet, why the hell do you need two dual cores, or in this case 4 cores, like what are you going to do, play fear, bf2, and encode a dvd, listen to music, virus scan, defrag, and whatever else you might want to do

also, i don't think single core should die, because they can fit more transistors in a single core, and therefore make it fatser than a dual core, so if you don't plan on multitasking, shouldn't you have the option to get an ultra fast single core like the fx-57 or in the future, some other uber cpu?





That's the question people had about dual proc. But yet most businesses - especially software houses - NEED dual core. Compilers are the first thing to be optimized for multi proc. Things like AutoCAD and ANSYS run better. Even the average user would see a difference if they have Flash windows open.
March 2, 2006 3:50:18 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think by now 1 CPU core has as many transistors as possible. Maybe a little more cache over time.
Mhz has reached a tempory limit so multi-cores is the ONLY way to gain performance.

I remember the 486 has 1 integer, 1 sucky FPU, Per Cycle.
Pentium has 2 int, 2 float,
Pentium Pro (all the way to Pentium 4) has 3 int, 2 float.
Finally the AMD k7/k8 has 3 int and 3 float.
Then the progress DIED.

I don't see gains per core like this in the see-able future.

I also don't see software as problem, Multi CPU motherboards and mult-processing OS where around 20+ years before the Pentium and Win NT.
March 2, 2006 3:51:20 PM

First and foremost how can ANY anylist make assumptions like these without ANY specs being given out by Intel or without any inside knowledge? This crap is the stuff that feeds the AMD vs Intel threads. This is a stupid article by some guy who knows nothign of the Proc Specs... yet MOST all just eat it up.... s-h-e-e-p.

Promote Free Thinkers Please

Form HardOCP
"PCWorld says that industry analyst are predicting that Intel’s quad core performance may be less than stellar. I seriously wonder how ANY industry analyst can even make that claim when Intel hasn’t even released a single ounce of information on the upcoming processor. Do these analyst have crystal balls...or just big brass ones?"

And oh yeah, you can throw this review in with the thread of the guy who got the 7900GTX... LOL!
March 2, 2006 4:21:39 PM

Quote:
First and foremost how can ANY anylist make assumptions like these without ANY specs being given out by Intel or without any inside knowledge? This crap is the stuff that feeds the AMD vs Intel threads. This is a stupid article by some guy who knows nothign of the Proc Specs... yet MOST all just eat it up.... s-h-e-e-p.

Promote Free Thinkers Please

Form HardOCP
"PCWorld says that industry analyst are predicting that Intel’s quad core performance may be less than stellar. I seriously wonder how ANY industry analyst can even make that claim when Intel hasn’t even released a single ounce of information on the upcoming processor. Do these analyst have crystal balls...or just big brass ones?"

And oh yeah, you can throw this review in with the thread of the guy who got the 7900GTX... LOL!


um... well considering we know the basic arcitecture design they plan on using (that has been announced), and we know about the performance of the processors last time this type of design was used, it doesn't sound pretty... the concerns are because of the bus that connects the processor... if it was too slow for 2 cores with this arcitecture, its gonna be even worse with 4 cores. this IS information we know... I didn't have to go find a crystal ball for it.
March 2, 2006 4:35:29 PM

yes but basically this is still all hearsay information. nothing but thory's that just make topics go on and on and on with no hard evidence no benchmarks and no hardware for this new quad core chip. Just like the PS3 it looks good on paper but you still don't know how its going to perform rill you get to try it
March 2, 2006 4:58:14 PM

I think the nail was hit on the head with the mentioning of software developments and particularly compilers that can do independent thread control with user controlled s/w switches. I have looked at Microsoft's website to see if multicore developments are in line with the same. This wasn't a detailed search, mind you. I live in the dark days with one of those sweek-squawk devices (a 56K modem).

Correct me if I am wrong, but a little birdie told me the OS also has been a pain for the previous applications of separate multiple processor systems? A different dog... but every dog has a tail. I cannot comments on XP. Maybe it's a decent new post meant for those without tassles on their feet and a pointy hat.

Hey... I could find a hundred core CPU of some value when applied app like a radar system. Same data set... multiple target tracking etc. That's just me... Yes lots of weird 'on the go' over here... bags of it.

I won't sign this post with my present build signature. I would not want someone to take out there monitor as they fall face first into it from laughter. To save face... I have an A8V Deluxe on the launch pad watching for CPU prices to come down with the AM2.

Fabe
!