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.