Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

hmm why is AMD following intel's mistakes?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 1:25:41 AM

i saw on THG that AMD have already released their plan for a quad cpu, sounds like the Intels's plan when they changed PIII to PIV... make the coustomers believe that more cores (in intel's case its GHZ) is better...
something tells me that four cors gona need good cooling...... so i wonder if they gona go with this route or are developing better performance per core or performance per MHZ? anyone is on this cuz i'm worried....



edited the y into why :p <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 06/15/05 00:30 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : hmm amd intel mistakes

June 15, 2005 1:56:13 AM

y = WHY.

...in answer to your question: MULITASKING IS THE KEY TO COMPUTER.

______________
<font color=green>Mozzartusm for vice-President</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 3:11:22 AM

lol what program ya run if you are playing a heavy cpu load game? not like firewall and that stuff i ment like divx encoding? i don;t think so....
Related resources
June 15, 2005 3:15:55 AM

You're thinking from a single core perspective. You think that it is a crazy idea to do that (and it is with a single core), but with multi-core CPU's it doesn't matter - each task won't affect the other. I know I get bored converting files, and could do with playing a game to pass the time.

Anyway - with the advent of muti-core CPU's more apps will become multithreaded and performance will increase dramatically.

______________
<font color=green>MOZZARTUSM FOR VICE-PRESIDENT</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 3:20:08 AM

i would guess but more cores (no matter what) equals more heat and more levels of complexty (gives lag) so with maybe 2 cores or 4 (when i said that amd is following intels mistatks i was sayign that in the future amd will try to get like 8 cores or 16 cores out while dumming down each core's performance to acheive the mutiple cores...) i mean 2 and 4 core is okay but if ya go any further heat and complexity will make the thing bad, if you can;t do one or twon thing good, don;t try to do like 10 things at once, i rather have one good fast job done than 10 jobs done slowly and badly (excipically with games as that if the job is done slowly then there is no way that multi core is good...)
June 15, 2005 3:23:31 AM

More cores comes with smaller processes (65nm...45nm etc) which results in less voltage -> less heat. Granted, I see what you mean, and your probably right the new CPUS will kick out more and more heat. But AMD won't release a CPU that cannot be cooled sufficiently anyway. I'm sure they have learnt from Intel's mistakes.

______________
<font color=green>MOZZARTUSM FOR VICE-PRESIDENT</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 3:27:01 AM

yeah i'm hoping that but i'm saying here is the worst senario: they try to put out a fake image that their cpu is better while it might not (hmmm member PIII to PIV transition HTT saved Intel's ass IMO as that it was great with multi taking, or the deal they cut with microsoft that makes windows system manage "two cpus" better)

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 06/14/05 11:29 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 15, 2005 3:37:16 AM

There is another angle you are forgetting. The main reason 4 core sounds wierd is because we are very used to single threaded games, and progs. If different cores can be used in the same prog, multiple cores could have the equivalent of adative speed.
Personnally, I'm not thrilled with the idea of 2 cores, but, I think that is the hump. Once we get familiar with multi- core, we may even like it.
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 3:41:25 AM

Quote:

There is another angle you are forgetting. The main reason 4 core sounds wierd is because we are very used to single threaded games, and progs. If different cores can be used in the same prog, multiple cores could have the equivalent of adative speed.
Personnally, I'm not thrilled with the idea of 2 cores, but, I think that is the hump. Once we get familiar with multi- core, we may even like it.

that is ture but the thing is with a game utilizing more cores means that they will take longer time to develop (if they decides to develop them at all...) and that is not what gamers wants......... although we will have to wait and see how much more performance you can squeeze out of multi core with programming and how easy it is to duplicate the conditions on another game...
June 15, 2005 3:43:48 AM

Coders / developers / compliers / languages will adapt - I'm sure eventually coding for dual code apps will be just as easy.

______________
<font color=green>MOZZARTUSM FOR VICE-PRESIDENT</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 3:47:29 AM

damn... i was hoping to be a programmer for games.... something tells me that plans are cancalled............................................
X.X hopefully i can lear fast enough as i go... i don;t think i will be able to pick up and contracts (and make more $$)when i'm like 23 then................
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 3:58:23 AM

hmm i woulkd guess that your are right....... man i wonder what job i can find that makes me tinker with top of line stuff and get good $$ for it....(i though if i was a programmer i would get enough $$ to buy the parts i wanted......)
June 15, 2005 4:02:09 AM

I wanted to be a programmer (and kinda still do) but as Wusy stated...your just a slave. Pay aint all that either.

______________
<font color=green>MOZZARTUSM FOR VICE-PRESIDENT</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 4:04:50 AM

lol wusy you look realy far into the futre eh? i migh be retired b4 bio computers become a home commodity (maybe my RRSP will cover computer upgrades by then lol)


wow i hit jourynman with this post! i think..... i wonder if anyone had acheived this in such short time w/o spamming lol
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 06/15/05 00:07 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 4:12:34 AM

oo did i mention i'm a immigrant from china to canada? something tells me that my parents are much better then other asian parents because they let me <b> choose </b> my career direction.... (i learned bold in the faq :smile: )
June 15, 2005 4:15:06 AM

Quote:
i learned bold in the faq


LOL

______________
<font color=green>MOZZARTUSM FOR VICE-PRESIDENT</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 4:17:21 AM

hey i learn fast :wink:
June 15, 2005 4:18:29 AM

ok hot-shot. Do this: :evil: 

______________
<font color=green>MOZZARTUSM FOR VICE-PRESIDENT</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 4:23:12 AM

:evil: 


or if that didn;t work... (used [ Devil ] w/o space)


:evil: 
probelly won't work but.....

:evil: 

lets see if it works if not i try somethign else
June 15, 2005 4:24:33 AM

Grrrr, you're good.

______________
<font color=green>MOZZARTUSM FOR VICE-PRESIDENT</font color=green>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 4:24:47 AM

woot 2 out of three works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! html source editing/viewing is great!!!
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 4:26:49 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe??? who is that? i better not use this icon then lol
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 4:40:03 AM

oic i though he was like a hacker and hacked into the server and places the devil icon there hehe
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 5:46:17 AM

I'm going to do what I always do, encode multiple media files simultaniously using multiple instances of the program. Only with multiple cores, I can push all of them.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
June 15, 2005 6:56:49 AM

Hey,

coding for multi threaded applications won't be that hard or new for programmers. I have actually had the chance to use some windows and linux multithreaded libraries when programming. All you have to do when designing multithreaded apps and games is easy: just decide which part of the program should have its own thread (example: the game controller, and the AI). So in this example, say its a FPS game, everytime the game controller needs to access the AI of a character it can send a request to the tread running the AI. And while the AI thread is computing, the game controller can finish computing other things.

btw check out the thread count for your apps by going to the Task Manager, view->select columns and click on "Thread Count".

However, you are right about each core in a multicore system being slower than compared to a single core chip, because each process that runs on a core needs to wait for another process to finish first. But this slight speed decrease is peanuts compared to having a multithreaded app running on a multicore system.

Oh and btw, I too am from Canada, I came from Israel to Toronto a long time ago :) .
June 15, 2005 8:35:52 AM

[/url] [/quote] What's the dif, when you have friends.
June 15, 2005 8:41:58 AM

Just my 2 cents on this subject: AMD isn't making any mistakes with thier multicore strategy.

First, they are pushing it where it matters most: servers. Typical server loads are highly parallel by nature, so having more cores is almost always better. Current dual core opterons are really THE bargain of the moment, and Groo (Charlie from the INQ) hints at quad core opterons as early as 1Q06 even though official roadmaps point to 2007.

Secondly, for desktops, dual core is a usefull feature. For a given process node, you may loose a speedgrade or two due to higher power consumption, but you gain a potential doubling of performance, especially when running more than one app. Thats not a bad trade off. Keep in mind that power consumption goes up exponentially with clockfrequency and only lineary with # of cores. Of course, this requires apps that can make use of multicores, but running 2 cpu intensive apps isn't THAT exceptional, so its an okay trade off I think. More than 2 cores on the desktop will only make sense if ever software really makes use of this, which will be quite a while for most things I believe.

In the mobile market, I honestly fail to see the point of dual core, for all but the most exceptional circumstances. I can only guess intel had trouble clocking up Dothan, so instead they used the thermal headroom and small diesize of Dothan to make something no one really needs: a dualcore mobile chip. AMD seems to feel obliged to follow, but again, *I* don't see the point.

If you put it all together, if anyone is f*ing up their multicore stategy for the moment, is Intel. They will have better multicore mobile chips than server chips early next year, and no matter how you look at that, thats plain silly. It would be like having EMT64 on Dothan, but 32 bit only Xeons and Itaniums.

As for your concern about thermals of multicore chips; don't fear. This newly discovered holy grail of computing is actually born from the fact that power consumption is becoming such a problem, and that cpu's just don't keep scaling their frequency with process shrinks as they used to. IBM said it boldly: clockscaling is dead. Not quite true of course, but its obvious that single threaded performance increases are slowing down at an alarming rate. There just isn't all that much anymore left to improve IPC, and clocking is slowing down as well if you want to keep sub 150W cpu's. Multicore is just a way (soon the only way ?) to make some good use of Moore's Law when the other tricks start failing.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
June 15, 2005 12:59:21 PM

isnt multicore old technology?

arent PowerPC's and a few other CPU's for other types of architecture using it to some extent (whats sony's Ceell processor?).

it can b e doen.. will be done...
June 15, 2005 3:02:20 PM

OMG...
Quote:
Lets see... Scottchens dad come from China and married a Canadian, mast3rbate came from China and lives in US, and now you from China and live in Canada. Oh and Night_L is like me from Taiwan, but live in other country.

I always knew that the Canooks were planning on taking over the U.S....but i didn't realize the Asians were the driving force behind the Canadians!!!!

OMG! It's all becoming clear now! [The increase in destroyers, the second and third non-propeller powered attack planes (ie jets in laymen's terms)] Yea, I'm on to you crazy Asians! Don't think I don't know whats going on. I'm going to the top with this...Anybody know if Hilary is still in NY?

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2000+ down][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5 down][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
June 15, 2005 3:18:35 PM

>isnt multicore old technology?

It certainly isn't a great invention, that is for sure.

>arent PowerPC's and a few other CPU's for other types of
>architecture using it to some extent

Depends where you draw the line. PowerPC certainly not, but Power (its high end brother) has been available for a while as MCMs, where several cores as well as huge L3 caches are combined into a single piece of silicon. Not too different from a Pentium D actually. See a pic of such a beast here:
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12145" target="_new">http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12145&lt;/A>

"true" multicore however, isn't new either. I'm sure it has been around for decades in specialized chips, and most certainly for several years by Sun (UltraSparc IV) and HP (PA Risc- 8 thousand somehting, not sure 8800A ?).

At best you could say Athlon X2 and Pentium D are the first mass produced general purpose dual core CPU's . Big deal.

>(whats sony's Ceell processor?).

Nah, hmm.. well, not really. Cell is more an extremely wide cpu than a true multicore.. it depends on your definition. Either way, Cell isn't here yet, so it couldn't claim the crown anyhow. I do believe Cell is the way forward though; not that chip specifically, but a more traditional and powerfull x86 core surrounded by more specialized units for things like FP and DSP, not unlike the Cell. Assymetrical multicore would be a good way to descibe that I guess.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
June 15, 2005 5:16:41 PM

Quote:
in the future amd will try to get like 8 cores or 16 cores out while dumming down each core's performance to acheive the mutiple cores...)

Latency from CPU to CPU in multicore systems appears to be lower than in multisocket systems.

Also you should look at the prices of 8 to 16-way systems, really expensive.
But multicore is affordable, it costs a fraction of multisocket systems.
Quote:
i mean 2 and 4 core is okay but if ya go any further heat and complexity will make the thing bad

With your experiences with 8-16 core CPU,s i must believe you. :lol: 

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
June 15, 2005 9:51:57 PM

Quote:
In reply to:

in the future amd will try to get like 8 cores or 16 cores out while dumming down each core's performance to acheive the mutiple cores...)

Latency from CPU to CPU in multicore systems appears to be lower than in multisocket systems.

Also you should look at the prices of 8 to 16-way systems, really expensive.
But multicore is affordable, it costs a fraction of multisocket systems.

In reply to:

i mean 2 and 4 core is okay but if ya go any further heat and complexity will make the thing bad

With your experiences with 8-16 core CPU,s i must believe you.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein

well this thread is all based on hypothoical ( sititutationsreally bad spelling) and that this is merly my point of view, becides usually when something gets more features or performance by going more complex then it will have more problems, think about it how much did dos offer and how much trouble it had? not many. while we are all cursing at windows, it does thing that dos never can (without some massive programming) which no one will do....... while windows DO have a lot of crap...... so that is where i get by belif that more complex=more trouble
if say the performance per core was increased then maybe only say 4 cores can acheive the same performance of 8 cores and w/o the complexity, i'm saying that AMD should develop more performance per core when they already have a 2 core or 4 core CPU developed and not go any further than that (except for server operations where i'm sure that no one will be playing games on a server so the higher performance per core is not needed but the average performance is more needed)

like your sig said eventually these computers will become obslite (quantium computer, bio-computer, etc... will replace these slicon chipped ones) because we have to rethink the way that computers work as that these slicon chips have to have a litmit or when something else is gona be easier to advance eventually, i beleive we would eventuall make the computer understand more than 0101010101010101 and that would really improve its performance , but how much trouble will it bring(terminator(movie series)?)?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheHolyLancer on 06/15/05 05:57 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 1:50:22 AM

lol we are the kind of people who put survial first as that there are manay people in china competing for youyr lunch.... that is one of the main reason we moved............... i mean look at china, people who are really good comes to the western worlds, the rest college/unversity grads are like wiping floors at restruants.......
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 3:04:10 AM

hmmmm i see... maybe i should not go for the routh i'm going at aiming for game AI programming and go for multi-thread mangement programming?
June 16, 2005 3:49:08 AM

Yea, once i get a mutlicore processor myself I'll start experimenting with parallel computing.. hehehe :) .
a b à CPUs
June 16, 2005 4:10:36 AM

man i think will need to learn all throse programming language first b4 i experiment with programing lol
!