Get back to me when they figure out how to combine a 6 core processor with a 7 blade razor.

This is bad news.... for Intel.


// not really
/// already got 8.

Unixfreak: This is bad news.... for Intel.


// not really
/// already got 8.

And Intel's Core i7 microarchitecture is still better than AMD's, unless something has changed recently...

Doesn't this whole "multi-core" thing only work if software companies design their software to work with it?

GreenAdder: Doesn't this whole "multi-core" thing only work if software companies design their software to work with it?

There are 61 active processes on my XP machine here. Although most of them are probably not computationally-expensive, the multiple cores presumably allow them to execute a bit more smoothly without stepping on other programs' toes.

I don't know how many mainstream programs use multiple processes. Firefox, I'm guessing not. Some of the tools I use at work do.

\Even so, Amdahl's Law
\\Furthermore, if all the cores are sharing the same memory bus and L2 cache, performance is below peak as well

Wake me up when they have one with 32 valves and dual overhead cams.

fark everything, we're doing six cores.

Hagbardr: Wake me up when they have one with 32 valves and dual overhead cams.

Wake up.

Better marketing for this 6 core processor: The AMD Sexcore. Instant best seller.

AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.

elchip: GreenAdder: Doesn't this whole "multi-core" thing only work if software companies design their software to work with it?

There are 61 active processes on my XP machine here. Although most of them are probably not computationally-expensive, the multiple cores presumably allow them to execute a bit more smoothly without stepping on other programs' toes.

I don't know how many mainstream programs use multiple processes. Firefox, I'm guessing not. Some of the tools I use at work do.

\Even so, Amdahl's Law
\\Furthermore, if all the cores are sharing the same memory bus and L2 cache, performance is below peak as well

Any GUI software that is not poorly written uses multiple threads which can span multiple processors depending on how your operating system works. It all has to do with processor contexting and interruption. Basically, more cores should mean less interrupts. Unfortunately, it does not always work that way.

I've always like the fact that AMD takes less of my cash,
and still gives me relatively equavalent performance.


Paying extra for something I'm truly not going to utilize is not pragmatic...

Fark it, we're doing 10 cores.

Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.

Exactly. You know why AMD came out with 3 core processors when Intel had 4? Because they couldn't reliably produce processors with 4 working cores. I guess they produced a good number of them with 3 working cores. Thus the 3 core was born.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that these 6 core chips are just two of those 3 cores on a single die.

Meanwhile, Intel has 4 core processors that probably out perform AMD's 6 core processors. Intel also has 8 core processors coming down the pipe.

/still chugging along with my over clocked dual core (E6600)
//not even really showing it's age yet.

LesserEvil: Hagbardr: Wake me up when they have one with 32 valves and dual overhead cams.

Wake up.

So much awesome. I'll be in my bunk.

/what?

rogue49: and still gives me relatively equavalent performance.

... and unfortunately decidedly weaker motherboard offerings.

Oh, sure, they have all kinds of features for enthusiasts, but try maintaining a fleet of AMD systems and you'll see why it's worth the slight price premium to have Intel-based machines.

This reminds me I need to update my computer.

The single core look is so outdated.

Fishflinger: This reminds me I need to update my computer.

The single core look is so outdated.

I'm actually about to do this. My wife just got a new Dell with dual core, and I'm the geek in the house. Her having a better PC than me WILL NOT STAND!
//It wont I tell you

Unixfreak: This is bad news.... for Intel.

// not really
/// already got 8.

Too bad there aren't more 64 bit and/or multicore applications out there. Other than After Effects CS4, much of it is wasted. It's kind of a pain to set separate affinity to each process.

No! No, no, not six! I said seven! Nobody's comin' up with six, who runs six cores? You won't even get your OS goin', not even a mouse on a wheel! Seven's the key number here.

I'm on a 1.6 ghz single core computer, so I'm not getting a kick out of these replies...

Now bring me an OS that makes use of more than two cores and is not meant for servers but for everyday joe the programmers.

elchip: And Intel's Core i7 microarchitecture is still better than AMD's, unless something has changed recently...

As Nehalem EX won't be out until 2010 (if then), there are no eight-socket i7's. So Intel is a non-starter.

GooseMeat: Now bring me an OS that makes use of more than two cores and is not meant for servers but for everyday joe the programmers.

netbsd, freebsd.
solaris.

It's not the size of your flop...it's how you use it.

tweekster: GooseMeat: Now bring me an OS that makes use of more than two cores and is not meant for servers but for everyday joe the programmers.

netbsd, freebsd.
solaris.

Dear god...you've uttered the name of the unmentionable beast. The Sun demon. It needs banished back unto the depths.

Beware or it will consume you and everything you care about.

elchip: GreenAdder: Doesn't this whole "multi-core" thing only work if software companies design their software to work with it?

There are 61 active processes on my XP machine here. Although most of them are probably not computationally-expensive, the multiple cores presumably allow them to execute a bit more smoothly without stepping on other programs' toes.

I don't know how many mainstream programs use multiple processes. Firefox, I'm guessing not. Some of the tools I use at work do.

\Even so, Amdahl's Law
\\Furthermore, if all the cores are sharing the same memory bus and L2 cache, performance is below peak as well

If you switch from Firefox to Chrome, you get a separate process for each tab. Though, I think MS and the Mozilla team are looking at doing something similar in the future.

So yeah, it's getting more and more used.

My boss told me he has a computer with 286 cores!

I don't really care which manufacturer has the better processor, I just don't want AMD going belly up.

'Cuz if they do, it'll mean Intel's prices will most likely triple, or worse.

(Currently have a core2duo, after an Athlon64 3400+)

portscanner: My boss told me he has a computer with 286 cores!

That's nothing. I learned my PC computerin' on a system with 8088 cores!

inthrees: I don't really care which manufacturer has the better processor, I just don't want AMD going belly up.

'Cuz if they do, it'll mean Intel's prices will most likely triple, or worse.

(Currently have a core2duo, after an Athlon64 3400+)

Or they will get lazy again, like the P4 line.

itsallgeek2me: switch from Firefox to Chrome

That was pretty funny.

i've got a V-2 64 bit AMD at 2.9Ghz per cylinder. AMD is the only engine i run, seeing as i can get more speed for the money.

more cpu cycles/dollar with AMD than with Intel.

but Intel does have the nicest commercials......

GreenAdder: Doesn't this whole "multi-core" thing only work if software companies design their software to work with it?

Yup.

And it's rather hard to do so. Algol-derived languages like C++/Python/C#/Java/etc are written in a purely sequential manner - do this then this then this then this then this. You function calls that spawn threads to do stuff at the same time, but then it gets hard to understand what's going on. The language doesn't really *show* you the threading in the way it shows you the sequence of events. You're flying blind and relying on your notes.

As such, don't expect good concurrency to be done well except in the biggest most mainstream apps (like Word and performance-intensive videogames). Casual programmers will always fail at threading.

There are languages that don't suffer from this problem, but they're academic languages that the mainstream software world has no interest in.

Linux_Yes: i've got a V-2 64 bit AMD at 2.9Ghz per cylinder. AMD is the only engine i run, seeing as i can get more speed for the money.

more cpu cycles/dollar with AMD than with Intel.

but Intel does have the nicest commercials......

and i use the finest Lubrication in the Industry:Linux

elchip: Unixfreak: This is bad news.... for Intel.


// not really
/// already got 8.

And Intel's Core i7 microarchitecture is still better than AMD's, unless something has changed recently...

Yep. Nehalem is pretty efficient. I'll probably skip the 6 core variant and upgrade when the 8 core chip launches.

jrchan: I'm on a 1.6 ghz single core computer, so I'm not getting a kick out of these replies...


and laughing all the way to the Bank, no doubt.

to put money into hardware that you won't utilize is, well, wasting money.

and you can't really futureproof bec. the tech. changes too rapidly.

best is to buy in the 'sweet spot' where you get the best bang/dollar.

high end is for bragging rights and folks pushing the envelope. and of course hard core gamers.

BKITU: Fark it, we're doing 10 cores.

Why stop there?

Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.

So?

I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

Linux_Yes: Linux_Yes: i've got a V-2 64 bit AMD at 2.9Ghz per cylinder. AMD is the only engine i run, seeing as i can get more speed for the money.

more cpu cycles/dollar with AMD than with Intel.

but Intel does have the nicest commercials......

and i use the finest Lubrication in the Industry:Linux

Linux is the transmission, it's manual, and you only have 3 gears.

Other OS's offer a higher gear ratio and an automatic. It means more moving parts and more to go wrong...for sure...but most people are going to go for them.

Fubar: I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

newegg

kasmel: Fubar: I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

newegg

Yeah, got that. What i'm looking for is a place that has a current list of what tech is is the "sweet spot" and works well together. It's been a looooong time since i've looked at all this stuff, so i don't know exactly where to start.

Fubar: I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

Tom's Hardware

you can slap four 6 core opterons on the same board now...

intel can suck it hard and long.

These are the post-Shanghai and not even held back in the same class as that half-assed die-splitter i7. The i7 can only do two things with the motherboard at one time, the Shanghai can do two things PER CORE with the motherboard and just keep rolling.

It doesn't matter how "efficient" the i7 is, it is still a dead-end technology that you'll have to replace in two or three years.

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/04/amd-releases-6-core-processor-named-o pt eron (new window)

/free thirty nanosecond sponsorship to TF to anybody who can tell me why it leaves the URL intact and chops up O pt eron in the comment?

Linux_Yes: jrchan: I'm on a 1.6 ghz single core computer, so I'm not getting a kick out of these replies...


and laughing all the way to the Bank, no doubt.

to put money into hardware that you won't utilize is, well, wasting money.

and you can't really futureproof bec. the tech. changes too rapidly.

best is to buy in the 'sweet spot' where you get the best bang/dollar.

high end is for bragging rights and folks pushing the envelope. and of course hard core gamers.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be a hardcore gamer. I don't play competitively, but I enjoy nice graphics. Unfortunately, at my resolution (2560x1600), you need quite a bit of power to achieve that.

Hehe, at work I use a computer with 128 cores.

/Okay, it's actually 16 computers each with two quad core processors
//Still, pretty cool to work with.

RemyDuron: Hehe, at work I use a computer with 128 cores.

/Okay, it's actually 16 computers each with two quad core processors
//Still, pretty cool to work with.

So it's like a Beowulf cluster? Neato. That'd be really useful for rendering, I'd imagine. What do you use it for?

Where does the Nehalem fit into all of this? I've tested Nehalem CPUs that smoked the 6-core Intel models already.

Diasdiem: Better marketing for this 6 core processor: The AMD Sexcore. Instant best seller.

Reminds me of when "Sexplex" CD-Roms were the thing to have. Marketing guys know how to appeal to computer geeks.

itsallgeek2me: If you switch from Firefox to Chrome, you get a separate process for each tab. Though, I think MS and the Mozilla team are looking at doing something similar in the future.

So yeah, it's getting more and more used.

IE 8 already does this or at least does so on my system, so the reference to MS should be past tense.

didn't the i7 8 core cinebench wipe the floor with AMD's latest and greatest?

And for all the "Isn't PS4 the only multi-core app? Who cares!" people out there; there is a HUGE number of 3D, 2D, you know, PROFESSIONAL apps that have been multi-core for at least a decade now. Tons of stuff.

bob_ross: didn't the i7 8 core cinebench wipe the floor with AMD's latest and greatest?

And for all the "Isn't PS4 the only multi-core app? Who cares!" people out there; there is a HUGE number of 3D, 2D, you know, PROFESSIONAL apps that have been multi-core for at least a decade now. Tons of stuff.

Also, multitaskig with single-threaded applications.

MrSteve007: Too bad there aren't more 64 bit and/or multicore applications out there

I'm stilled stunned at the lack of 64 bit apps around. I mean it's not like it takes much to take a 32 bit app and turn it into 64 bit.

Diasdiem: Better marketing for this 6 core processor: The AMD Sexcore. Instant best seller.

Please let this catch on. Please let this catch on. Please please please.

bob_ross: didn't the i7 8 core cinebench wipe the floor with AMD's latest and greatest?

Probably, but it will cost 4x as much, and who drops $1200+ on a CPU?

Fanboys crack me up. Yes Intel does good work and yes they tend to overcharge for it compared to the competition.

Ripping AMD's 3-core? Great marketing and waste reduction IMO. Where do you think every processor that isn't clocked at the highest rate in the lineup comes from? They're all marked down, because of slow silicon or pure marketing.

The trick, regardless of manufacturer, is to wait a bit later in the product cycle where the marked down ones are actually just as good as the top-of-the-line and overclock them.

XMark: fark everything, we're doing six cores.

Said exactly that to my colleagues when I read about this. Blank faces all. I don't know why I bother sometimes.

/Colleagues write about technology too.

These are more useful for multi request processing servers (web app servers, oltp, db, etc) than for desktop use. It's much more likely that a server is dealing with multiple requests across multiple threads, which would keep the cpu busy. It's also more likely that a server has fast storage (ssd, raid), which keeps the cpu busier. For home machines, the multi cores are nice but not a 6x speedup for 6 cores. Desktop CPU's are idle for far more time than they're used, less so on server CPUs.

pnjunction: bob_ross: didn't the i7 8 core cinebench wipe the floor with AMD's latest and greatest?

Probably, but it will cost 4x as much, and who drops $1200+ on a CPU?

CLEARLY you're just not a big enough nerd!

pnjunction: bob_ross: didn't the i7 8 core cinebench wipe the floor with AMD's latest and greatest?

Probably, but it will cost 4x as much, and who drops $1200+ on a CPU?

Is can be had for $200 regularly. I paid $230 for mine 4 months ago. Been rocking alog at 3.6GHz since.

Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.

Those are intentional passive radiators...

Fubar: I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

techreport

Can someone explain to me, in dumb-speak, what is the difference between an Intel chip and an AMD chip? Does each company use different materials? Different manufacturing techniques? Different product design? What technical features make one different from the other? Isn't a chip just a chip?

/ not tech smrt

MBA Whore: Can someone explain to me, in dumb-speak, what is the difference between an Intel chip and an AMD chip? Does each company use different materials? Different manufacturing techniques? Different product design? What technical features make one different from the other? Isn't a chip just a chip?

/ not tech smrt

Different chip design. I'm pretty sure they use the same instruction set, but the imementation is different.

/I may very well be wrong
//considering computer engineering as a major

prjindigo/free thirty nanosecond sponsorship to TF to anybody who can tell me why it leaves the URL intact and chops up O pt eron in the comment?

Fark filter that protects the layout of the page (the fixed maximum width of the comment area); inserting spaces splits a string that could be too long for the comment area into shorter ones so that browsers can put them on different lines.
Since the URL in the "href" of the link isn't displayed, there's no need to do it there (it would also break the link if it were done).

I have an Inline-4 Intel unit, so far it's going pretty well, has a decent displacement and handles what I throw it at damn well.

GreenAdder:
Doesn't this whole "multi-core" thing only work if software companies design their software to work with it?

I thought the whole point of "multi-core" was that it presented as one CPU to the software, but split the work up among multiple processors so you didn't need to write software specifically for it.

/confused
/hasn't bought a computer since 2002 :P

Macs have 8-cores. Just saying

RemyDuron: Hehe, at work I use a computer with 128 cores.

/Okay, it's actually 16 computers each with two quad core processors
//Still, pretty cool to work with.

Heh we just built a cluster thats about the same size last year at the lab. That and I have access to about 4 other ones, all pretty potent and my own machine is a dual quad-core intel workstation with 16 GB of RAM. Phylogenetics is a hungry beast, especially for RAM.

Fark Me with a Chainsaw: Macs have 8-cores. Just saying

Mac Pro's (their Workstation line) have dual quad-cores. And they are inte chips, they aren't made by Mac.

MBA Whore
Does each company use different materials?
Could be.

Different manufacturing techniques?
Very likely.
Those can even differ between two CPUs by the same company.

Different product design?
Yes.


What technical features make one different from the other?
Haven't looked at them in ages.

Anyway, take them as a black box that takes a sequence of ones and zeros and produces another such sequence as a result (or more abstract you give it "1+2" and it returns "3").
What integrated circuits and optimizations it internally uses to get that result is up to AMD and Intel.


Isn't a chip just a chip?
Car analogy time:
Isn't a car just a car? ;)

Fark Me with a Chainsaw: Macs have 8-cores. Just saying



Yeah Apple sure is miles ahead of Intel, ATI and Nvidia's crappy hardware.

Fark Me with a Chainsaw: Macs have 8-cores. Just saying

Unsure whether to correct you on the actual statement, correct you on where Apple's hardware comes from, or assume it's a fanboy parody and move on. I think I'll go with #3.

kasmel: Linux


odd, because my '3 speed xmission' is way faster than XP ever was. windows 95, 98, 98SE, or 2000 weren't as fast either. never fooled with Vista because it is well known bloatware.

but believe what you want to believe.

Monkeypillow: Linux

pushing that kind of resolution, you need top end hardware.

Linux_Yes: kasmel: Linux


odd, because my '3 speed xmission' is way faster than XP ever was. windows 95, 98, 98SE, or 2000 weren't as fast either. never fooled with Vista because it is well known bloatware.

but believe what you want to believe.

With your zircon-encrusted tweezers in your hand, all the other cowpokes will think you're mighty grand.

kasmel: Linux


and i hear viruses are automatic too. just click the wrong link or open the wrong attachment....

sadly, in Linux i can't do that. i have to download the virus file, log in as root to give the file execute permissions. and then run the file as root, otherwise it will only have the system rights as my regular user account which means no system rights. see, that way, i don't have to be concerned with which link i click or attachment i download.

and with approx. 50 of all web servers in the world running Linux, you can't use the 'well, no one uses linux so no one writes viruses for linux' excuse.

see, Linux was born on the Internet. that and the fact that it got alot of help from UNIX design, means that Linux was designed to be secure on the network from day one.

windows was trying to be everyone's best friend while Linux was focused on speed and security.

its no wonder that 95% of ALL supercomputers in the World run Linux.

95% is a pretty good majority.

jso2897: Linux

did i mention the new ext4 file system in Linux does not get fragmented, thus no need to defrag??

course, ext3 really didn't get very fragmented either, so its really not a new feature.

Linux_Yes: Monkeypillow: Linux

pushing that kind of resolution, you need top end hardware.

Yeah, but the games are so much fun. I'm actually driving the display pretty well with two GTX 260s in SLi. I buy my hardware after it's been out for a while. The GTX 260s launched at $450 a piece. I got them on a sale for $150 each. I think I did pretty well for th price.

Linux_Yes: did i mention the new ext4 file system in Linux does not get fragmented, thus no need to defrag??

Is that why the ext4 team is specifically creating online defrag tools (new window)?

course, ext3 really didn't get very fragmented either, so its really not a new feature.

Take a look a the output of your boot fsck. You'll see that it reports fragmentation. Oh, and the method to defragment a disk on Linux? Copy the data off, format the partition, then copy it back.

Just because the information is well hidden and the system does some magic maths to help reduce the effect doesn't mean you're immune to fragmentation. Just because there are no tools for fixing the problem in Linux easily doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

But don't let me spoil your blind zealotry.

Linux_Yes: kasmel: Linux


and i hear viruses are automatic too. just click the wrong link or open the wrong attachment....

sadly, in Linux i can't do that. i have to download the virus file, log in as root to give the file execute permissions. and then run the file as root, otherwise it will only have the system rights as my regular user account which means no system rights. see, that way, i don't have to be concerned with which link i click or attachment i download.

and with approx. 50 of all web servers in the world running Linux, you can't use the 'well, no one uses linux so no one writes viruses for linux' excuse.

see, Linux was born on the Internet. that and the fact that it got alot of help from UNIX design, means that Linux was designed to be secure on the network from day one.

windows was trying to be everyone's best friend while Linux was focused on speed and security.

its no wonder that 95% of ALL supercomputers in the World run Linux.

95% is a pretty good majority.

Weird, I always thought you were a Windows guy.

Fubar: kasmel: Fubar: I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

newegg

Yeah, got that. What i'm looking for is a place that has a current list of what tech is is the "sweet spot" and works well together. It's been a looooong time since i've looked at all this stuff, so i don't know exactly where to start.

NO NO NO... pricewatch.com

/newegg sux

OnmyojiOmn: No! No, no, not six! I said seven! Nobody's comin' up with six, who runs six cores? You won't even get your OS goin', not even a mouse on a wheel! Seven's the key number here.

Think about it. 7-Eleven. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 Little Chipmunks sitting on a branch, eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch! You know that old children's tale from the sea! It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Ika7734: Fishflinger: This reminds me I need to update my computer.

The single core look is so outdated.

I'm actually about to do this. My wife just got a new Dell with dual core, and I'm the geek in the house. Her having a better PC than me WILL NOT STAND!
//It wont I tell you

I did the exact same thing, I'm still happily crunching away on my single core 1GbRam 5 year old machine, but last year when my wife's machine (my old one) needed an overall, I went and got her a dual core machine, which she loves.

I've been considering getting myself a newer machine, something like a quad core, but as I've been waiting for prices to go down, and then Windows 7 was announced, I've decided to wait a bit longer. And now with this 6 core announcement, I think that I'll wait for a little longer, as I'm still able to get all my work done as this old machine has been so good to me.

The only reason is that I do a lot of videos and rendering time is awful compared to her machine (and so is the multitasking). Her machine can render a two hour video in about 20 minutes while mine takes about 2-3 hours.

But I just time my longer rendering jobs at bedtime so it's not that much of an issue.

Are they really eight core processors with 2 bad cores that they disabled :D

GooseMeat: Now bring me an OS that makes use of more than two cores and is not meant for servers but for everyday joe the programmers.

You ever hear of this mystic operating system called Windows XP?

I hate to explain symmetric multiprocessing to everyone, but "support" for it is done by the scheduler portion of the kernel. Yes, Windows supports it, and does it fairly well. Setting processor affinity is for the truly anal retentive. Otherwise, processors switch contexts and processes all the time, you have probably just never worked with assembly level kernel code enough to have a need to understand it.

Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.

And? This is common practice. They also do this with things like CPU speed and ram. The 3.0ghz processor is offered because it can't reach 3.5ghz. In ram, the higher timings sticks are because the chips could not reach the better timings.

When you fabricate stuff at the molecular level that they are, this is common practice, it has nothing to do with 'farking them up'.

Monkeypillow: RemyDuron: Hehe, at work I use a computer with 128 cores.

/Okay, it's actually 16 computers each with two quad core processors
//Still, pretty cool to work with.

So it's like a Beowulf cluster? Neato. That'd be really useful for rendering, I'd imagine. What do you use it for?

I work at a place that does physics research, which is more my area but since I started working I've more or less just worked on computers. Programming, then putting together the cluster, installing the OS, learning MPI, getting things to work on it. . .

It is a beowulf cluster, I guess, had to look up the term. I used Rocks for the OS because it seemed easiest to install and manage, and so far it has been nice. Almost makes me want to get my main desktop and spare computers and make one at home.

We're going to use it to do big calculations, run MCNP, etc.

MBA Whore: Can someone explain to me, in dumb-speak, what is the difference between an Intel chip and an AMD chip? Does each company use different materials? Different manufacturing techniques? Different product design? What technical features make one different from the other? Isn't a chip just a chip?

/ not tech smrt

To reduce it down to ridiculously simplistic terms...

Imagine two assembly plants that make the same product from the same raw materials, but have different assembly lines.

One assembly line might have fewer people working on it, but the workers on the line do more complicated tasks than the other assembly line which has lots of people performing very simple tasks.

One assembly line might actually split into two parallel lines at some point, where tasks that are independent of another can be done in parallel and then rejoined at the end.

One assembly line might be better at predicting when they need to send someone off to get a new crate of raw materials.

etc.

Fark Me with a Chainsaw: Macs have 8-cores. Just saying

Just so everyone is aware, Apple doesn't make hardware.

AppleOptionEsc: Apple doesn't make hardware.

Do they not make any hardware these days? Not their motherboards, not their disk drives, not anything? Not even their monitors?

What difference does it make how many cores you have when they all use the same bus???

Fark Me with a Chainsaw: Macs have 8-cores. Just saying

does that mean that Apple is the official computer of Octomom?

elchip: Do they not make any hardware these days? Not their motherboards, not their disk drives, not anything? Not even their monitors?

Last time I looked Apple used the same panels for their 30" monitor that Dell does. That said, even the PPC stuff wasn't Apple - it was IBM. There's no reasonable way for Apple to compete with Seagate/WD/Hitachi, Intel/AMD, Nvidi/ATI, etc. etc.

For some reason they're not putting Intel's X25 SSD in their 2.5-3+ grand Mac Pro's. imho any desktop with a price of over a grand or so warrants an SSD... the difference is astronomical.

Azbjorn: What difference does it make how many cores you have when they all use the same bus???

AMD has had the gigantic bandwidth of hypertransport for some time now (which has been a large advantage in a machine with multiple quad core CPUs).

Intel thusly followed suit with Quickpath, Nehalem's FSB replacement.

Our computer core has clearly been tampered with and yet there is no sign of a breach of security on board. We have engines back and will attempt to complete our mission, but without a reliable computer, ...............................................
.........................................................
.........................................................

GreenAdder: Doesn't this whole "multi-core" thing only work if software companies design their software to work with it?

Unless your computer is over 3 or 4 years old, you're running a multi-core processor now(older cpu's may be virtual cores only). You don't need software that uses multiple cores to take advantage of them, you just need to run more then one program or process at a time.

Linux_Yes: kasmel: Linux


odd, because my '3 speed xmission' is way faster than XP ever was. windows 95, 98, 98SE, or 2000 weren't as fast either. never fooled with Vista because it is well known bloatware.

but believe what you want to believe.

didn't say the 3 speed wasn't powerful dude...you have a lot more torque in your limited range. the other, more versatile, transmissions lose a lot of power and reliability in added complexity.

it's all in what you want to spend time doing while you're driving.

Linux_Yes: kasmel: Linux


and i hear viruses are automatic too. just click the wrong link or open the wrong attachment....

sadly, in Linux i can't do that. i have to download the virus file, log in as root to give the file execute permissions. and then run the file as root, otherwise it will only have the system rights as my regular user account which means no system rights. see, that way, i don't have to be concerned with which link i click or attachment i download.

and with approx. 50 of all web servers in the world running Linux, you can't use the 'well, no one uses linux so no one writes viruses for linux' excuse.

see, Linux was born on the Internet. that and the fact that it got alot of help from UNIX design, means that Linux was designed to be secure on the network from day one.

windows was trying to be everyone's best friend while Linux was focused on speed and security.

its no wonder that 95% of ALL supercomputers in the World run Linux.

95% is a pretty good majority.

Wow. Obsess much? Seriously...I use CentOS and Ubuntu Server for work. I have a couple VMs that run Valhalla for the odd tomcat instance. The occasional client runs Solaris...tragically. I'm quite familiar with Unix based systems. I'm comfortable using them and like many of them for specific things.

For you, every tool in the shed has to be a hammer. I prefer to have a variety in my toolbox. I use XP for desktop machines because I work in the business world. I have to be able to not only read/write MS based office documents with their original formatting, but also be able to run ASP based net software and the MS API. It's called having a real job in the real world. Unix systems are great for a lot of things. They are, however, neither the end all, or the be all, and they are most definitely NOT one size fits all. Anyone that says one OS or one proprietary brand is just the best without question is either trying to sell something, or a fanboi.

Which are you?

obtanium666: Fubar: kasmel: Fubar: I'm starting to research building a new computer soon, so this is relevant to my interests. Having not built anything in 10+ years, where is a good place to start looking? Price is not really important, but i'd rather get good value than go all crazy on it.

newegg

Yeah, got that. What i'm looking for is a place that has a current list of what tech is is the "sweet spot" and works well together. It's been a looooong time since i've looked at all this stuff, so i don't know exactly where to start.

NO NO NO... pricewatch.com

/newegg sux

only use pricewatch if you're also going to use resellerratings...or...be prepared for disappointment.

Linux_Yes: and with approx. 50 of all web servers in the world running Linux, you can't use the 'well, no one uses linux so no one writes viruses for linux' excuse.

50? That's almost as many as Apple has sold.

MBA Whore: Can someone explain to me, in dumb-speak, what is the difference between an Intel chip and an AMD chip? Does each company use different materials? Different manufacturing techniques? Different product design? What technical features make one different from the other? Isn't a chip just a chip?

/ not tech smrt

I haven't checked lately to see if they've changed their philosophies, but...

Intel is known for producing high-speed processors with long pipelines.

AMD is known for producing lower-speed processors with short pipelines.

So the information needs to be processed through this so-called pipeline, right?

Intel pushes it through fast, but it takes a while to get through since it's long.

AMD pushes it through slower, but the pipe is shorter, so it evens out.

This is why Intel chips gigahertz speed is considerably faster, they run hotter and suck up more juice than AMD chips.

This is why AMD chips have names/numbers like "Athlon X2 5000" but the gigahertz rating is only 2.6 gigahertz. But it's comparable to an Intel 5 gigahertz processor.

Some people see the slower AMD gigahertz numbers and assume that the chips are much slower than Intel chips, but that's not the case.

There are certain advantages and disadvantages to both types of architecture. But I don't remember the details.

In my experience, AMD give you more bang for the buck. Intel usually has the best performing chips, but those prices are considerably more expensive than AMD chips. So unless you're doing CAD work or are trying to figure out how to fix the global economy, then AMD does just fine.

Anyway, that's how I remember it. I'm sure someone will come along and tell me how wrong and dumb I am.

sigh, farking linux_yes is at it again. dude is almost a legendary troll here, yet i stil have to read his comments because everyone quotes his ass.

just ignore him and be done with it people.

MrSteve007: Too bad there aren't more 64 bit and/or multicore applications out there. Other than After Effects CS4, much of it is wasted. It's kind of a pain to set separate affinity to each process.

Photoshop has a 64bit version as well. There are a lot of applications that are 64 bit.....

moralpanic: Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.

And? This is common practice. They also do this with things like CPU speed and ram. The 3.0ghz processor is offered because it can't reach 3.5ghz. In ram, the higher timings sticks are because the chips could not reach the better timings.

When you fabricate stuff at the molecular level that they are, this is common practice, it has nothing to do with 'farking them up'.

Equating a CPU being clocked at 3.0 because it can't reach 3.3Ghz, or RAM being clocked at 1866 because it can't reach 2000 to "They f*cked up the FABRICATION process and have to offer a four core CPU with one switched off as a three core" is moronic.

Please never offer anyone any advice about technology ever again.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: Equating a CPU being clocked at 3.0 because it can't reach 3.3Ghz, or RAM being clocked at 1866 because it can't reach 2000 to "They f*cked up the FABRICATION process and have to offer a four core CPU with one switched off as a three core" is moronic.

Please never offer anyone any advice about technology ever again.

Fail. Statistical variations in the manufacturing process can cause anything from slower operation chip-wide, functional failure chip-wide, to localized slower operation and failure.

It is possible to 'f*ck up' and have bad yields (with regards to speed, functionality OR both), but to deny that both can occur statistically without any real mistakes being made is incredibly ignorant on your part. Beyond that, you purport to know the reason why they switch off one core (it could be speed or functionality, or just pure marketing).

Both ATI and Nvidia have been switching off pipeline units in their GPUs and downgrading parts for years, it's not because of mistakes. Different in every case, it's possibly yield but mainly marketing.

fark it we're doing 2000 cores.

likefunbutnot: rogue49: and still gives me relatively equavalent performance.

... and unfortunately decidedly weaker motherboard offerings.

Oh, sure, they have all kinds of features for enthusiasts, but try maintaining a fleet of AMD systems and you'll see why it's worth the slight price premium to have Intel-based machines.

I prefer AMD because of speed due to losing useless items (anyone remember the 3D junk Intel put on the Intel chips?), thereby reducing the price overall. 'Sides, it's not just the chip that powers a 3D game, it's the gfx card now.

Is this the first product released under the new outsourced fab? It will be interesting to see how well they can maintain the demanding development schedule having manufacturing being a separate thing. If these two beasts become too isolated you waste precious time debating whether the process or the mask is messed up....anyway, good luck AMD.

tweekster: GooseMeat: Now bring me an OS that makes use of more than two cores and is not meant for servers but for everyday joe the programmers.

netbsd, freebsd.
solaris.

Just about anything made in the last decade.

rel123: fark it we're doing 2000 cores.

Perhaps (new window)

pnjunction:
Fail. Statistical variations in the manufacturing process can cause anything from slower operation chip-wide, functional failure chip-wide, to localized slower operation and failure.

It is possible to 'f*ck up' and have bad yields (with regards to speed, functionality OR both), but to deny that both can occur statistically without any real mistakes being made is incredibly ignorant on your part. Beyond that, you purport to know the reason why they switch off one core (it could be speed or functionality, or just pure marketing).

Excuse me? You read all that into that statement? I simply implied equating those two in terms of severity is moronic. Which it is. Missing frequency goals by 9% (which can be due to many things outside of fab) is nowhere near as severe as needing to switch off a core due to your shiatastic manufacturing and then simply stating that it was a marketing decision once you sort it out with a revision.



Both ATI and Nvidia have been switching off pipeline units in their GPUs and downgrading parts for years, it's not because of mistakes. Different in every case, it's possibly yield but mainly marketing.

Now you're equating CPUs to GPUs, which I never even mentioned. And if you think ATI or Nvidia have never downgraded a part due to mistakes or yield, then you're an idiot.

Considering AMD spokesmen said in plain English "it's a manufacturing issue" and then suddenly changed that story to "marketing/personal decision" once they had sorted it out with a revision is quite telling.

But of course, that would require actually paying attention to the issue and their comments on the issue, now wouldn't it?

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: Now you're equating CPUs to GPUs, which I never even mentioned. And if you think ATI or Nvidia have never downgraded a part due to mistakes or yield, then you're an idiot.

With multiple processing units they're becoming more similar.

Did I say that they never downgraded due to yield?

What's a fact is that they downgrade despite yield. Not every unit gets sold as the top-of-the-line, even if they all are all capable.

Same goes for CPUs. They downgrade/undersell speed whether there are yield issues or not. Why not do it with cores? On the other hand from the yield perspective, unless your yield is 100% then there are some processors that can be saved and sold if you put a 3-core model into the line-up.

If the 3-core models fit into a price/performance category, who the f*ck cares? Maybe if there was a shortage of the 4-core models, was there? I didn't hear of any.

Look a few years back at the Radeon X800, now THOSE were some major yield issues. My buddy at ATI said they had guys running them through the paces BY HAND to try and send a few good ones out the door.

When they make an OS that can actually still run smoothly on it after 6 months of my kids using it I'll care.

Red_Fox: When they make an OS that can actually still run smoothly on it after 6 months of my kids using it I'll care.

My kid's machine has been running for about 3 years now on it's original setup and a crapload of programs. I don't let them download "warez - hackers!!!", pirates stuff and porn.

Maybe you're doing it wrong.

oh, it's running XP BTW.

Uchiha_Cycliste: AKA an 8 core where the fab process farked up 2 of em.



Ahem, I only see six cores, each with their own L1 & L2 cache, the bottom quarter is the shared L3 cache.

/Image is as hot as an Intel chip!