when's k10 coming out

[cooldude]

sounds stupid, but i just wanna know.

becasue this means that there'll be bette performance.

the 'reverse hyperthreading' thing is aslo cool

take a loo at this:

Quad Core CPU's have the potential to eliminate GPU (Graphic Processing Unit), by dedicating one CPU to graphic processing as well as dedicated ram. The current Graphic cards would be unable to compete with a dedicated GPU within the CPU because the latency comparison between a PCI-Express and interior CPU are incomparable.


http://www.answers.com/quad%20core

i got it from here.

so this means that by te time k10 is released, there'll be no need for gpus, even though some of u might say this wont be happenin at that time, but the cpu might also be able to take the graphics load off the gpu at least

 

[Ycon]

CPUs will never be even close to a GPUs performance.

 

[luminaris]

I think the latest from AMD on this and i'm not even sure what Quarter but, 2007 we will more than likely see quad cores from AMD. To me, just having dual cores is awesome. I can't imagine having a quad core processor.

 

[dvdpiddy]

I think the latest from AMD on this and i'm not even sure what Quarter but, 2007 we will more than likely see quad cores from AMD. To me, just having dual cores is awesome. I can't imagine having a quad core processor.

I agree with you Luminaris dual cores are awesome but why cant AMD release quad cores now with 90 nanos? (Now time for a quote out of nowhere)

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better... stronger... faster.

 

[Heyyou27]

Quad Core CPU's have the potential to eliminate GPU (Graphic Processing Unit), by dedicating one CPU to graphic processing as well as dedicated ram. The current Graphic cards would be unable to compete with a dedicated GPU within the CPU because the latency comparison between a PCI-Express and interior CPU are incomparable.

The guy who wrote that has no idea what he's talking about; a CPU is not even close to performing as well as a dedicated GPU.

 

[Caboose-1]

Pound for pound, a GPU beats the crap out of a CPU in terms of performance increase. Tell me, can a FX-60 make Half-Life 2 what it should be with onboard graphics?

 

[NumenorLord]

I guess dual cores also "have the ability to eliminate the GPU" by having one core dedicated to graphics processing. XD

 

[cubicleslave]

sounds stupid, but i just wanna know.

becasue this means that there'll be bette performance.

the 'reverse hyperthreading' thing is aslo cool

take a loo at this:

Quad Core CPU's have the potential to eliminate GPU (Graphic Processing Unit), by dedicating one CPU to graphic processing as well as dedicated ram. The current Graphic cards would be unable to compete with a dedicated GPU within the CPU because the latency comparison between a PCI-Express and interior CPU are incomparable.


http://www.answers.com/quad%20core

i got it from here.

so this means that by te time k10 is released, there'll be no need for gpus, even though some of u might say this wont be happenin at that time, but the cpu might also be able to take the graphics load off the gpu at least

Is latency really such a big deal for graphics cards? It is my impression that unlike a memory bus, graphics data over PCIE is basically a one-way stream from the CPU to the GPU and it doesn't really hurt if you have a little extra latency. It just takes a few extra nanoseconds (literally) to get the picture out. If this is an accurate assessment, then dedicating one core to GPU duties won't be as good as having a dedicated GPU on a PCIE card, because the GPU is specifically optimized for processing graphics, and not general purpose computing. Of course, the core has more RAM at its disposal, but are graphics cards really hurting for memory at the moment? Please correct me if I am wrong, since I would like to learn too!

 

[luminaris]

I think the latest from AMD on this and i'm not even sure what Quarter but, 2007 we will more than likely see quad cores from AMD. To me, just having dual cores is awesome. I can't imagine having a quad core processor.

I agree with you Luminaris dual cores are awesome but why cant AMD release quad cores now with 90 nanos? (Now time for a quote out of nowhere)

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better... stronger... faster.

Perhaps not quite enough room on the die due to size? I'm sure AMD could pull it off but right now, they need to transition to 65nm first then, move to quad core. Gotta get those costs down. They've already got a great architecture but, they can't compete costwise vs. Intel. Just my opinion.

 

[dvdpiddy]

I think the latest from AMD on this and i'm not even sure what Quarter but, 2007 we will more than likely see quad cores from AMD. To me, just having dual cores is awesome. I can't imagine having a quad core processor.

I agree with you Luminaris dual cores are awesome but why cant AMD release quad cores now with 90 nanos? (Now time for a quote out of nowhere)

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better... stronger... faster.

Perhaps not quite enough room on the die due to size? I'm sure AMD could pull it off but right now, they need to transition to 65nm first then, move to quad core. Gotta get those costs down. They've already got a great architecture but, they can't compete costwise vs. Intel. Just my opinion. I get what you mean but if they can build a man for six million dollars into a bionic man then why cant they for 50$ make a quad core proc? (Now time for another random quote)

He has gone insane!

 

[tamalsmith]

Pound for pound, a GPU beats the crap out of a CPU in terms of performance increase. Tell me, can a FX-60 make Half-Life 2 what it should be with onboard graphics?

thats a perfectly dumb comparison..
tell me, can you compare a Ferrari to a Bus ?

no right?
the diference is..
multipurpose vs dedicated
hell, even a 10 Mhz RISC cpu for decrambling signals is faster than a FX.60..

why? because the risc chip was designed for his task
while the FX-60 is a multipurpose cpu....

same with the gpu, its designed for graphics, all its hardware is done for so.

so comparing them is completely retardly.

 

[Caboose-1]

Pound for pound, a GPU beats the crap out of a CPU in terms of performance increase. Tell me, can a FX-60 make Half-Life 2 what it should be with onboard graphics?

thats a perfectly dumb comparison..
tell me, can you compare a Ferrari to a Bus ?

no right?
the diference is..
multipurpose vs dedicated
hell, even a 10 Mhz RISC cpu for decrambling signals is faster than a FX.60..

why? because the risc chip was designed for his task
while the FX-60 is a multipurpose cpu....

same with the gpu, its designed for graphics, all its hardware is done for so.

so comparing them is completely retardly. Perhaps you should take the time to think about what I said and actually realize that it is a perfectly relevant comparison. Though I don't agree that my comparison is "dumb," as you say, I agree that when something is created for or optimized for something in particular, it will most likely run better on it than something far more powerful but is designed for general tasks. This is clearly apparent in software, i.e., games. Take Half-Life 2 which is optimized for ATi hardware, two equally aspirated VPU's one from ATi and the other from nVidia and test them, the ATi will come out on top. From my own personal experience, ATi seems to have the best visual quality and nVidia seems to have the best raw performance.

 

[DaveUK]

As far as I'm aware, the transistor count of nVidia/ATI's latest creations is far higher than the latest CPU's from AMD/Intel. They are far more sophisticated hardware.

 

[RichPLS]

True but they are limited in their processing ability and not as multi-function nor have the mathematic computational flexibility to compare with CPU's.

 

[stOrmy]

sounds stupid, but i just wanna know.

becasue this means that there'll be bette performance.

the 'reverse hyperthreading' thing is aslo cool

take a loo at this:

Quad Core CPU's have the potential to eliminate GPU (Graphic Processing Unit), by dedicating one CPU to graphic processing as well as dedicated ram. The current Graphic cards would be unable to compete with a dedicated GPU within the CPU because the latency comparison between a PCI-Express and interior CPU are incomparable.


http://www.answers.com/quad%20core

i got it from here.

so this means that by te time k10 is released, there'll be no need for gpus, even though some of u might say this wont be happenin at that time, but the cpu might also be able to take the graphics load off the gpu at least

I believe these specifications are more a wish list. For one, reverse hyperthreading is just being looked at currently as a concept. I’m not sure if they know yet whether it could even be done. Intel is also supposedly researching this as well from what I read, but who knows for sure. Anyway, I wouldn’t hold my breath on this unit we know more.

Now, I have heard talk on the onboard GPU with CPU but not like you talked about. I may be wrong about this one but I thought the onboard GPU is like a low cost option as a selling point for new processors. It is not currently looked at as a replacement for a true GPU but a cheap replacement for onboard video. A dedicated GPU would destroy such a setup currently as it does now with onboard video. Maybe in the future this will change.

Quad core is coming out but I’m not sure if we will see it in 2007 or not. It all depends on how the battle heats up between Intel and AMD. Intel’s Conroe chips may change a lot of things if its performance numbers hold up. Please don’t turn this statement into another flame war between AMD and Intel.

 

[Topota_madre]

I think future its, multipurpose core to send data and specific coprocesros for tasks like CELL does, but then you need ano computer for gaming, another for oficce, etc. AMD HT could help to put coprocesors in sockets. One dual core central processor and two or tree coprocesors in other socckets sharing ram betwen them.

 

[dvdpiddy]

I think future its, multipurpose core to send data and specific coprocesros for tasks like CELL does, but then you need ano computer for gaming, another for oficce, etc. AMD HT could help to put coprocesors in sockets. One dual core central processor and two or tree coprocesors in other socckets sharing ram betwen them.

LEARN TO SPELL! :lol:

 

[Heyyou27]

I use one my my cores for a GPU; Quake2 runs like a charm. :lol:

 

[dvdpiddy]

I use one my my cores for a GPU; Quake2 runs like a charm. :lol:

And how can you do that ? What software or tweak you are using ? He's joking!

 

[TabrisDarkPeace]

I run an Opteron 270, which is two x dual-core processors.

With one of them rendering 3D effects I get about 5fps, while the other 3 cores are working.

The article links is highly inaccurate.

Perhaps if they itegrate a GPU core and a CPU core within the same die... but with GPUs heading towards 1 billion transistors fast I really don't see it happening. A single GPU core is already more complex than most processors, and since it is relative, it almost always will be.

Beyond 2012, perhaps yes, it will happen. Maybe even in HandTop PCs, and smaller / low power PCs, but in the traditional desktop it will be a long way off, and we'll be at 32 cores / processor by then.

There is software that lets OpenGL be rendered using a processor btw, instead of a by a GPU.

 

[JonathanDeane]

lol Actualy you CAN run Quake 2 in software mode but thats neither here nor there I guess Since I cant even get Unreal Tournament 1 to run under XP (that realy sucks) lol

 

[Atolsammeek]

I m looking at this. Some people say it will not work or so on. It just a idea. But setup 5 slots for ram on the motherboard. 1 ram slot and it for both itegrate GPUs Useing upto 1gb total 512mb each. The rest for the Cpu. Here what I think it will do. It would stop shard Memory. And it would make dual gpus faster for it on the motherboard not on a grapics card. Plus it will help keep the computer cooler. For it will help in airflow.

 

[Action_Man]

Wouldn't work.

 

[endyen]

I think he just discribed a physics processor being built into the chip. Might work.
There really is no reason why cores could not be built as dedicated funtion devices. After all, a core is just a bunch of transistors. Since they are built right onto the wafer, there is no reason the design could not include special purpose cores.
I think you have to be looking at that option, once you have more than about 8 cores on a single die. The north and south bridges are probably the first things thar should go on die.

 

[Action_Man]

Really? Sounds more like GPU's using system memory.