Dual-core Quad-core

[HardWareBoss]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

 

[apt403]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

Link please.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Linkage?

I thought AMD was going in a different direction, I forget what they call it, but putting specialized cores onto a die.

 

[ajfink]

Linkage?

I thought AMD was going in a different direction, I forget what they call it, but putting specialized cores onto a die.

Fusion. Torrenza for multi-socket specialized co-processors.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Linkage?

I thought AMD was going in a different direction, I forget what they call it, but putting specialized cores onto a die.

Fusion. Torrenza for multi-socket specialized co-processors.

Thank you.

 

[heartview]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

Sixteen 2-bit cores perhaps?

 

[bfellow]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

Sixteen 2-bit cores perhaps?

Hey that adds up to 32-bits! Does that mean buy 16 mobos and have them linked?!? :lol:

 

[darious00777]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

You know, I just notice that this doesn't implicitly imply that it will be AMD to have a 16 core processor by 2012.

 

[col-p-todd]

Tell me about it, the better hurry up with there quad cores, intel wil have the Q6600 for +-560 bij Q2 07.

 

[shinigamiX]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

You know, I just notice that this doesn't implicitly imply that it will be AMD to have a 16 core processor by 2012.
Maybe they found out VIA will have a 16-core CPU and are trying to take credit for it....

 

[BaronMatrix]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

I think they were emphasizing 16 THREADS rather than 16 cores. Since 2007 for AMD will mean 8 cores, moving FX to quad socket in 2008 would actually produce 16 available threads though I think the next arch should be a "modular-threaded core" with 2 threads per core or the ability to use an APU to run extra threads.

Intel has shown that they can get an MCM out quick and with Penryn/Nehalem they can get 8 cores in one socket. AMDs tact would have to be different considering their more limited resources.

As I have always said the CPU competes with the SW and if SW is not ready for 4 cores, then having them has a limited effect on productivity and vice versa.

APUs will be a staple as you could offload even more background processes, such as 24bit 192K audio or TCP/IP, Java, .Net or kernel functions even(this would require extensive security modeling).

All of this of course is based on the proliferation of SW models but a little R&D can go a long way to provide proof-of-concept reference devices. A lot of the time required for new concepts requires less investment than research. It's hard to get a company to jump on new concepts that are unproven.

 

[amnotanoobie]

It'd be interesting to see doing video encoding, photoshop, audio encoding, winrar compression while still playing some games all at the same time. of course you don't have enough hands to do these at the same time anyway. Too many cores, too little things to do.

(AMD was kinda right, before the Hertz battle was going nowhere, and now were going crazy with the cores).

 

[gOJDO]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

Intel says 80 cores by 2012.

Since 2007 for AMD will mean 8 cores, moving FX to quad socket in 2008 would actually produce 16 available threads though I think the next arch should be a "modular-threaded core" with 2 threads per core or the ability to use an APU to run extra threads.

What a crapload of BS, as usual!
He is talking about CPUs, not about platforms. QuadFX is not a CPU, it is a platform! When are you going to realise that?
Sometimes this year AMD will have a platform with up to 32 cores in 8 s1207+ K8L CPUs. The spaceheater is a slow garbage compared to that beast.
Anyway both platforms will perform miserable compared to any cluster supercomputer

 

[BaronMatrix]

AMD says 16-core by 2012.

Intel says 80 cores by 2012.

Since 2007 for AMD will mean 8 cores, moving FX to quad socket in 2008 would actually produce 16 available threads though I think the next arch should be a "modular-threaded core" with 2 threads per core or the ability to use an APU to run extra threads.

What a crapload of BS, as usual!
He is talking about CPUs, not about platforms. QuadFX is not a CPU, it is a platform! When are you going to realise that?
Sometimes this year AMD will have a platform with up to 32 cores in 8 s1207+ K8L CPUs. The spaceheater is a slow garbage compared to that beast.
Anyway both platforms will perform miserable compared to any cluster supercomputer


Talk about BS. Most of the Top 500 are based on X64 (AMD or Intel) so you just have to stalk me. AMD is talking about SW. What good is having 16 cores when the SW only uses 2?

I only used QFX as an example of 8 cores next year with no mention of performance or heat.

 

[heartview]

Vista may do a little to help the software issue, since it is a pretty hefty OS and has hundreds of threads running at once just on its own. But I agree, without a "killer app", multi-core is a waste of technology. How many cores do you need to run Office or your web browser? There just isn't a piece of software out there that is a "must have" for everyone that requires more than one core.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Vista may do a little to help the software issue, since it is a pretty hefty OS and has hundreds of threads running at once just on its own. But I agree, without a "killer app", multi-core is a waste of technology. How many cores do you need to run Office or your web browser? There just isn't a piece of software out there that is a "must have" for everyone that requires more than one core.

Exactly. And there probably won't be for some time. Gamers will get DX10 multithreading but how do you run Word in more than one thread? The next big thing will be BluRay/HD-DVD as they can grind a system to a halt with another process running.

The biggest use for multi-cores right now is "multi-tasking" with video. Everything else runs just fine with one main thread and a few background threads.