Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Nvidia Says More CPU Cores are Better (& Why)

By - Source: Computerworld | B 65 comments

The more cores the merrier rule also applies to smartphones and other mobile devices.

Today's smartphones have chips inside that can produce output that surpasses that of a Nintendo Wii – which is very impressive for something that fits inside your pocket. But those right now are single-core, and as any computer enthusiast now knows from their desktops and laptops, more cores tend to make for a better computing experience.

The top-end chips inside tablets and smartphones next year will be dual-core, and Nvidia has published a whitepaper on why it will be a great thing not only in terms of performance, but also power consumption.

Essentially, having two cores splitting the work puts less strain on each individual core as compared to having a single core shoulder the entire load. This not only allows for greater performance potential but also a generally lower power draw – provided that both cores aren't under a greater load.

Check out some of Nvidia's charts below for a better idea, and then the full white paper for more details.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 13 Hide
    usfs , December 9, 2010 12:18 PM
    DON'T WORRY CITIZENS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS IS HERE!
Other Comments
  • -6 Hide
    theholylancer , December 9, 2010 11:56 AM
    sooooo they are saying AMD > intel given that they offers more cores at the price point?

    IE for the price of i5, you can get a Ph II X6?

    or more just mobile (and our stuff only) and marketing had gotten a brain fart?
  • 3 Hide
    mrface , December 9, 2010 11:57 AM
    Load balancing has been around for awhile....
  • Display all 65 comments.
  • -1 Hide
    eklipz330 , December 9, 2010 12:03 PM
    OMG WHAT?

    STOP THE PRESSES!! SINGLE CORES ARE NOT FASTER THAN DUAL CORES!!!!!

    -_-
  • -7 Hide
    thearm , December 9, 2010 12:03 PM
    theholylancersooooo they are saying AMD > intel given that they offers more cores at the price point?IE for the price of i5, you can get a Ph II X6?or more just mobile (and our stuff only) and marketing had gotten a brain fart?


    I had to read your post three times to under what you where trying to say. Got it now! I'll still take Intel and Nvidia over AMD any day. I think they simply make better products. I used both at the beginning of my tech career now I only user Intel and Nvidia. I'm not opposed to an ATI video card though but I've had good luck with Nvidia so I'm sticking w/ them. I'm brand loyal until I have a good reason to not be.
  • 2 Hide
    JerseyFirefighter , December 9, 2010 12:07 PM
    theholylancersooooo they are saying AMD > intel given that they offers more cores at the price point?IE for the price of i5, you can get a Ph II X6?or more just mobile (and our stuff only) and marketing had gotten a brain fart?



    AMD's benchmarks fall short overall vs it's same priced intel... i.e. the AMD x6 1090T vs the core i7 950. You can find the two for relatively the same price and cpu benchmarks put the intel over the AMD. Not to say that AMD still has the best bang for the buck on most of their products, but for AMD's top of the line hexacore, you'd expect it to beat our it's competitors quad cores. (there are also a number of quads above the 950 as im sure you know)
  • 7 Hide
    JerseyFirefighter , December 9, 2010 12:08 PM
    On a side note, at least my smartphone will be able to play crysis in the near future.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 9, 2010 12:08 PM
    This is nothing new- been taught in every basic computer architecture class since the dual cores came out
  • -2 Hide
    alyoshka , December 9, 2010 12:16 PM
    So Nvidia finally see's light????
    If that's the case they really need to beat the world fastest dual processor card by making a sing dual core GPU.......
  • 13 Hide
    usfs , December 9, 2010 12:18 PM
    DON'T WORRY CITIZENS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS IS HERE!
  • 3 Hide
    leo2kp , December 9, 2010 12:22 PM
    Hey I thought just a year ago they were saying CPUs were going out of style. Now they want MORE of 'em. Well, good, 'cause so do I.
  • 0 Hide
    Horhe , December 9, 2010 12:23 PM
    thearmI'll still take Intel and Nvidia over AMD any day. I think they simply make better products. I used both at the beginning of my tech career now I only user Intel and Nvidia. I'm not opposed to an ATI video card though but I've had good luck with Nvidia so I'm sticking w/ them. I'm brand loyal until I have a good reason to not be.

    I'm loyal to price/performance ratio, but biased towards Nvidia when it comes to video cards, because I like Nvidia CPL more than ATI CCC (which lacks scaling with fixed aspect ratio).

    So, seeing as the performance of the smartphones' CPU rose dramatically in the past years, and the performance of the desktop CPU rose only a little, does this mean that in a few years phones will be as powerful as desktop PCs? We need faster desktop CPUs, not a CPU with 2^n (n>=4) cores. What am I going to do with so many idle cores?
  • 6 Hide
    daship , December 9, 2010 12:27 PM
    This is from the same idiots that said the GPU was going to take over the CPU.
  • 4 Hide
    burnley14 , December 9, 2010 12:54 PM
    Unrelated to this article, but has the ability to give thumbs up/down been removed? I've found that every time I do it I come back and my promotions/demotions of comments have been neutralized. If so, I'm not happy about that change.
  • 4 Hide
    konjiki7 , December 9, 2010 1:10 PM
    JerseyFirefighterAMD's benchmarks fall short overall vs it's same priced intel... i.e. the AMD x6 1090T vs the core i7 950. You can find the two for relatively the same price and cpu benchmarks put the intel over the AMD. Not to say that AMD still has the best bang for the buck on most of their products, but for AMD's top of the line hexacore, you'd expect it to beat our it's competitors quad cores. (there are also a number of quads above the 950 as im sure you know)


    AMD platform provides better throughput at high resolution 1600 or higher in terms of gaming it depends if the game is going to take advantage of that.

    As you see below 1090T x6($199) in worst cases scenario performs the same as i950($290)at best its fast as or faster then i7 970($859).(Without overclocking.) The fun begins when its overclocked.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/100?vs=146
  • 0 Hide
    e1m0 , December 9, 2010 1:18 PM
    I remember Intel saying something about once you reach a point, adding more cores becomes impractical.
  • 2 Hide
    techguy911 , December 9, 2010 1:31 PM
    Its all based on software if software or os does not use extra cores having more cores does not help, some games still only use 1 core even windows 7 uses 2 cores any more don't help.
    Having more than 1 core in xp does not help as it was not designed to do so windows 8 will make more use of more cores but most game developers still are behind on making multi-threaded games work well with 3 or more cores.
    The problem lies with hardware if hardware could do the multi-threading on its own instead of relying on coding it for muli-thread use it would make it much easier to create software that could utilize more cores.
  • 0 Hide
    spectrewind , December 9, 2010 1:40 PM
    In the multi-core vs. multi-thread comparison, this makes sense. The graphic above assumes a perfection in processor selection affinity. No OS Windows OS does this (yet)...

    Does DirectX (any version) support more than two cores (two simultaneous threads) yet?

    Anyone still gaming on WinXP is locked at two cores at the OS kernel level.
  • -1 Hide
    r3t4rd , December 9, 2010 1:43 PM
    Anyone notice in the top chart, you have "F" for flash contents? I suppose NVIDIA is trying to say or it means all Apple iOS products are negated from having dual cores? That would only make sense and be funny.
  • 4 Hide
    allenpan , December 9, 2010 1:56 PM
    i dont think the "power" cumsumption umber is wrong, assuming Power = Voltage * Current (P=VI or P=VIcos@) or Voltage ^2 * Resistance (P=V^2R) or Power = Current ^2 / Resistance (P=I^2/R)

    so now we have single core
    V=1.1
    P=p
    I=p/1.1

    assuming dual voltage are in cascade/series
    V = 0.8*2
    I=p/1.1
    P = 1.6*(p/1.1) = 1.45p

    if is in parallel
    V = 0.8
    I = p/1.1
    P= 0.72p, however is in parallel = 1.45p
    NV has strange math
  • -1 Hide
    ahnilated , December 9, 2010 2:00 PM
    There is a problem with loss across the cpu's. With each CPU not being 100% as efficient as the other with code interacting you get loss. It may only be 10-20% but it doesn't take long to have a total loss of a CPU. This was talked about a while ago with the fact that parallel processing programming in both the core and OS is not 100% efficient. In a 100 core system you could have 10-20 processors just wasting heat/electricity and doing nothing to help.
Display more comments