Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Dream Machine


  • Please log in to reply

#16
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
If the last two posts weren't spam, I don't know what is...

Anyways, something that I noticed right away is: If this is a dream system, why are you air-cooling it? Shouldn't you be using liquid nitrogen or something crazy like that? :)

Also, (and I know that you will instantly disregard this being that you are obviously an AMD fanboy, but...) as James said, Intel's dual and quad-core chips currently outperform AMD's.
  • 0

Advertisements


#17
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts

If the last two posts weren't spam, I don't know what is...

I think it was some kind of inside joke.
James
  • 0

#18
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Im going to point out the obvious thing that anyone into technology will already know that past at most 4 cores none of the hardware and software can actually make good use of the extra CPUs making them more or less useless.

And please don't post if you aren't looking for help it is a help site if you want to post stuff like this use the off topic forum please.

Edited by warriorscot, 08 October 2007 - 09:53 AM.

  • 0

#19
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts

Im going to point out the obvious thing that anyone into technology will already know that past at most 4 cores none of the hardware and software can actually make good use of the extra CPUs making them more or less useless.

True in our current state this is true, but as we gain more and more applications that are multithreaded (in the sense of more then 2 cores) we will begin to notice a benefit, but I think that time is a long ways away. Like I have already stated, I'd rather Intel and AMD focuse more on improving the efficiency per clock rather then adding more cores. In one sense it's a marketing gimic just like we saw in the GHz battle, AMD had a lower clock rate when compared to Intel, but was the better chip. However the general public believed the higher a number the better, which as we all know is not the case.
Things like the cell processor in the PS3 will give developers a bit (very slight) of a heads up of what is to come and prepare for, but as we add more and more cores, the coding of programs are going to become drastically more difficult and as a result the software we pay for will likely increase in price as well.
Programs to use 8 cores are a long way off, as we have yet to see full implementation of multithreaded dual cores programs or even see a mutlithreaded program that will utilize all 4 cores. However regardless of what we think of the matter, I can see the core race trend to continue in the near and not so far away future. Even when AMD and Intel has claimed they don't want to start a "core race". We all know it's coming and for that matter it's even begun.
James

Edited by james_8970, 08 October 2007 - 12:14 PM.

  • 0

#20
fortune82

fortune82

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
james, found something about your last post.

Regardless of what Moore's Law has to say, there's not much point in increasing processor speeds or doubling the bit paths in a CPU if the system bus can't carry the traffic anyway. Since problems with transistors leaking current also worsen as clock speeds increase and CPUs shrink, both AMD and Intel have decided to focus on increasing the number of processor cores on a chip instead of increasing processor speeds.

was in pc world magazine
  • 0

#21
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts

james, found something about your last post.

Regardless of what Moore's Law has to say, there's not much point in increasing processor speeds or doubling the bit paths in a CPU if the system bus can't carry the traffic anyway. Since problems with transistors leaking current also worsen as clock speeds increase and CPUs shrink, both AMD and Intel have decided to focus on increasing the number of processor cores on a chip instead of increasing processor speeds.

was in pc world magazine


Yup, your correct, which is why Intel and AMD are looking at other ways other the more cores and why it's more or less physically impossible to mass produce a processor that is greater then 4GHz, leakage and very low yielding processors are among many problems. Read my post more closely, I mentioned making processors more efficient per clock rate rather then increasing the clock speed. A P4 was supposed to be released that had a greater clock speed then 4GHz. Intel abandoned the attempt, their highest remained at 3.8GHz.
More cores are useless unless software developers can utilize them, we are already seeing that the cell processor is to far ahead of its time making it much more difficult and costly to release a game on the PS3 forcing many to abandon the attempt.
We can only shrink the die so much and then we will see AMD and Intel revolutionize the CPU, we will be forced to a new technology such as light, quantum mechanics (long way down the road) among many others.
Overall AMD/Intel shouldn't go after the core race, just like they shouldn't have gone after the MHz/GHz race. But it's whatever investors and the market wants them to do that will drive the company towards their future not what they should do. Whatever renders a company more profitable is what will drive a company to it's future.
When AMD's processors for better then Intel's, AMD failed, why? People thought that the high the clock rate the better the processor, this was of course not the case. Of course there was also serval anti-trust issues that contributed, but thats another story all together. Why does this lead us now? Well people believe the more cores the better, to a point this may be correct, but we are about to watch things get out of control, again. Just you watch as it unfolds over the next year or two. Intel and AMD have already claimed they are not going to start a core war, but they have already announced their future processors which contradicts this statement.....here we go again
James

Edit: The bit paths are increasing as well, Neleham is a complete redesign of Intel chips in the sense that there will no longer be a FSB, AMD has already elimated this bottleneck.

Edited by james_8970, 14 October 2007 - 07:38 PM.

  • 0

#22
Troy

Troy

    Tech Staff

  • Technician
  • 8,839 posts
Instead of the FSB (Front Side Bus), they should make a FSA (Front Side Airplane), we all know buses are horrible and inefficient :)
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP