1 little, 2 little, 4 little CPU cores?

[jkflipflop]

What are you talking about?

[Luseferous]

Wow, I re-read this again today. Talk about off the deep end. Geez.

Its also mostly wrong.

So, again, how can you back up your statements regarding the "benefits" of multicore in this day and age? I'm not looking for an explanation of the "looks good on paper" or "in theory" things that have been said already. I'm not even going to include Vi$ta in this, as it doesn't exist in my world (and won't for a long time, if I can help it)

I run a 3D renderer and I can tell you its not just on paper, Render times are cut by ~50% over a single core solution. (quad core will show a similar increase again) any multi threaded app will reap huge benefits. Before you go on about games not being multi-theaded three words: STALKER , Supreme Commander. Both of which get an enormous boost from dual core.

As for your argument about swapping in and out of games. its not the processor causing the lag, hiccup in performance its ancillary tasks like clearing video memory and swapping info onto and off the swap file.

I do however agree that prime95 is a good stress test. (Orthos is better for dual core as its setup for multi-core so you only run one instance)

[jkflipflop]

Its also mostly wrong.

Hence, the "Off the deep end comment".

[Luseferous]

The was not aimed in your direction. I interpreted off the deep end as over the top.

[jkflipflop]

Oh, my bad. I apologize. People flame you alot around here. I thought you were another one of the horde.

But man, that dude is insane. I make computer chips for a living. I can tell you there isn't one iota of truth to anything in that post.

[Luseferous]

Np, Got any spare Penryn/Barcelona samples ?

[jkflipflop]

If I did, I would be the coolest kid on the block.

[intentsly]

Intentsly earlier wrote:
So, again, how can you back up your statements regarding the "benefits" of multicore in this day and age? I'm not looking for an explanation of the "looks good on paper" or "in theory" things that have been said already. I'm not even going to include Vi$ta in this, as it doesn't exist in my world (and won't for a long time, if I can help it)

I run a 3D renderer and I can tell you its not just on paper, Render times are cut by ~50% over a single core solution. (quad core will show a similar increase again) any multi threaded app will reap huge benefits. Before you go on about games not being multi-theaded three words: STALKER , Supreme Commander. Both of which get an enormous boost from dual core.

Not everyone runs a 3d renderer, play those games, nor create movies or even burn CDs. It is nice to hear that games are ..starting to take adavantage of them. I'm talking about the general public, does the general public really need so many of them?

As for your argument about swapping in and out of games. its not the processor causing the lag, hiccup in performance its ancillary tasks like clearing video memory and swapping info onto and off the swap file.

This would sound like real world performance issues then, you know the things that affect everyone everyday. The things that should be taken into account when tossing off on how good something is. As I stated in an earlier post, just don't go on about something if it really doesn't benefit everyday use. Shouldn't there be more a focus on these ancillary tasks, you mentioned, that need get done? The CPU's and GPU's seem up to snuff, now what about the rest of the story? It reminds me of when they kept trying to make better graphics cards, when main issue was the bus that transported the data was bottlenecked/insufficient. If the supporting functions are insufficient, then throwing more cores at the problem is going to solve this? Seems more a work around.

Intentsly
(UT99~ [--]Torturia)

[Luseferous]

"I'm talking about the general public, does the general public really need so many of them? "

I'm part of the general public and as I said before yes I need them. (in the sense that anyone needs a computer at all)

If by general public you mean people who just want to write letters and surf the net then why not use a Pentium 2, it will do the job fine. Why would you need an FX57 or whatever for that ? I do believe that most people run an operating system and as long as it is not Win 9x you will again notice how much better it functions under dual core.

Things like clearing Video RAM and moving data to the swap file are nothing to do with the processor speed they are limited by the Hard drive speed and the Video card. So again by your arguments why use any cpu that is faster than the slowest component inside the computer.

Unlike your theories on computer design most manufacturers make their products as good (fast) as they can and are constantly trying to improve performance by whatever means they can. For processors this means multi-core for the simple reason that both Intel and AMD are having great difficulty constantly increasing frequency while keeping down the amount of heat produced and power consumed, take a look at the Pentium 4. Do you really want a chip that runs at 8 Ghz and consumes a kilowatt of power while heating your room for you just so it can be single core ? Or a 2 Ghz four core solution that consumes around a 100 watts and does not need an industrial fridge attached to it just so your case won't melt ?

jkflipflop: Yep you really would be

[intentsly]

I'm part of the general public and as I said before yes I need them. (in the sense that anyone needs a computer at all)

You are doing something that a large percentage of the general public does not do.

If by general public you mean people who just want to write letters and surf the net then why not use a Pentium 2, it will do the job fine. Why would you need an FX57 or whatever for that ? I do believe that most people run an operating system and as long as it is not Win 9x you will again notice how much better it functions under dual core.

The public is still running the old pentiums, to their disadvantage of course. That doesn't mean they need a multicore cpu, does it? They would be happy with the later single cores of which not all are energy hogs.

Things like clearing Video RAM and moving data to the swap file are nothing to do with the processor speed they are limited by the Hard drive speed and the Video card. So again by your arguments why use any cpu that is faster than the slowest component inside the computer.

What I was saying was, there needs to be improvements elsewhere (other "ancillary" components) to take full advantage of the multicore processors or there is waste in buying more than what you need. My FX57 does a fine job at anything I throw at it. I know its not the best, but my opteron dual core didn't seem to give me any benefits over the former. So, I switched back.

Unlike your theories on computer design most manufacturers make their products as good (fast) as they can and are constantly trying to improve performance by whatever means they can. For processors this means multi-core for the simple reason that both Intel and AMD are having great difficulty constantly increasing frequency while keeping down the amount of heat produced and power consumed, take a look at the Pentium 4. Do you really want a chip that runs at 8 Ghz and consumes a kilowatt of power while heating your room for you just so it can be single core ? Or a 2 Ghz four core solution that consumes around a 100 watts and does not need an industrial fridge attached to it just so your case won't melt ?

Did I say they were my or anyone elses 'design theories'? No, but you'd have to admit somethings on the ancillary support side tend to remain the same to cut costs. Not all board makers are trying to wow the public, many hope buyers won't ever look inside their cases (especially the big brands).
~
Did I say that multicore wasn't the future? No, I asked if the general public needs so many cores (say a quad) right now. Sure, some of the single cores were space heaters, not all of them. Gimme a break. Do you really think that I'd think I'd want cpu progress to be all about single core and have ridiculous amounts of heat and power created/used? I just don't think the general email/websurfing public needs what they're shoving in front of them (waste).
~
Would not creating single cores from these smaller dies end up in larger quantities of cheaper,faster(than current single cores) and lower power consuming processors (less cores to power) for the general public?
~
Please, this is only a bit of a debate, I'm not flaming you or jkflipflop. In a way, I'm picking your very knowledgeable data stores and appreciate your comments. If anything I'm learning things from a much better source.

Intentsly
(UT99~ [--]Torturia)

[Luseferous]

Reading your last post you seem to be talking from the perspective of someone who jumped the gun tried dual core a year or two ago. Back then you really would not noticed any difference apart from in a few select packages (like the one I use). While this is still partly the case things are moving and starting to snowball. Here is a list someone has compiled http://www.denniskarlsson.com/smp/
While not the longest list in the world it does contain some very mainstream applications. Its also far from a complete listing. I would take a guess and say that list will at least double in length in the next six months and the rate will increase. Windows has also got over its teething problems with dual core and though you can go and tweak affinities there is no need.

The public is still running the old pentiums, to their disadvantage of course. That doesn't mean they need a multicore cpu, does it? They would be happy with the later single cores of which not all are energy hogs.

The point I was making in the bit you quoted was. If your only requirements were word processing, email and some web browsing you don't require a fast single or dual core pc. A much older slower machine will do the job perfectly well. If however you want to Play games, edit photo's, music or home video (as more and more people are doing) as well then you 'need' as much horse power as possible and now is the time you can start to see real benefits from a multi core system.

When I spoke about manufacturers making products as good as they can. I didn't mean that brand a is for the 'elite' user and is faster than brand b for the mainstream. I meant for example you cannot make a hard disk that can transfer data to/from RAM at the speeds your processor can require. It is a partly mechanical device and has strict limits on how fast you can move the read/write heads to access the data. So until someone invents something better at a reasonable cost. Cpu's with no matter how many cores will run into situations where they are waiting around for data from the drive or for the drive to write information before sending more.

Finally apologies for sounding overly harsh.

Ps. Your FX57 would probably have a higher clock speed than the dual Opti so a single instance of a single threaded app would indeed run better on it.

[jkflipflop]

You are doing something that a large percentage of the general public does not do.



The public is still running the old pentiums, to their disadvantage of course. That doesn't mean they need a multicore cpu, does it? They would be happy with the later single cores of which not all are energy hogs.



What I was saying was, there needs to be improvements elsewhere (other "ancillary" components) to take full advantage of the multicore processors or there is waste in buying more than what you need. My FX57 does a fine job at anything I throw at it. I know its not the best, but my opteron dual core didn't seem to give me any benefits over the former. So, I switched back.



Did I say they were my or anyone elses 'design theories'? No, but you'd have to admit somethings on the ancillary support side tend to remain the same to cut costs. Not all board makers are trying to wow the public, many hope buyers won't ever look inside their cases (especially the big brands).
~
Did I say that multicore wasn't the future? No, I asked if the general public needs so many cores (say a quad) right now. Sure, some of the single cores were space heaters, not all of them. Gimme a break. Do you really think that I'd think I'd want cpu progress to be all about single core and have ridiculous amounts of heat and power created/used? I just don't think the general email/websurfing public needs what they're shoving in front of them (waste).
~
Would not creating single cores from these smaller dies end up in larger quantities of cheaper,faster(than current single cores) and lower power consuming processors (less cores to power) for the general public?
~
Please, this is only a bit of a debate, I'm not flaming you or jkflipflop. In a way, I'm picking your very knowledgeable data stores and appreciate your comments. If anything I'm learning things from a much better source.

Intentsly
(UT99~ [--]Torturia)

You're just making an arguement for the sake of making an arguement. No one NEEDS a PC at all. No one really NEEDS anything outside of food, water, and shelter.

[intentsly]

You're just making an arguement for the sake of making an arguement. No one NEEDS a PC at all. No one really NEEDS anything outside of food, water, and shelter.

So, why bother discussing anything right? Since all we need is to eat, drink, sleep and krap. Is it not the purpose of these forums (and many others) to promote thought. I was asking questions in my last post as well. Seeking your opinions to questions that many of us have. If not only to provoke thoughts on the subjects. How else do things develop?

Intentsly
(UT99~ [--]Torturia)

[jkflipflop]

Alright, let's try this again then.

There is benefit to multi-core. Just because your games don't use it, doesn't mean it isn't there. No, mom and dad that do nothing but check e-mail and surf on ebay won't see the benefit.

Soon, you WILL see the power in games. One core will be dedicated to massive physics modeling, one to AI, one to sound, and one to everything else. That old FX-57 is pretty long in the tooth as it is. In another year or so you'll be wishing you had that dual core opty back.

And, just on the desktop I guess there are certain senarios where multicore brings extra value. The other day, I was playing BF2142. The game is running smooth as butter, but I happened to notice that my hard disk was going crazy. I alt-tabbed out to the desktop to discover that my computer was defraging the hard disk AND running a virus scan at the same time. On a single core system, that would have brought my game to a crashing halt. With my C2D, wouldn't have noticed if it wasnt for the hard drive light coming on.

Is that what you're talking about?

[intentsly]

Alright, let's try this again then.

There is benefit to multi-core. Just because your games don't use it, doesn't mean it isn't there. No, mom and dad that do nothing but check e-mail and surf on ebay won't see the benefit.

Soon, you WILL see the power in games. One core will be dedicated to massive physics modeling, one to AI, one to sound, and one to everything else. That old FX-57 is pretty long in the tooth as it is. In another year or so you'll be wishing you had that dual core opty back.

And, just on the desktop I guess there are certain senarios where multicore brings extra value. The other day, I was playing BF2142. The game is running smooth as butter, but I happened to notice that my hard disk was going crazy. I alt-tabbed out to the desktop to discover that my computer was defraging the hard disk AND running a virus scan at the same time. On a single core system, that would have brought my game to a crashing halt. With my C2D, wouldn't have noticed if it wasnt for the hard drive light coming on.

Is that what you're talking about?

See, now was that so hard lol Thats, a pretty compelling scenario, as I'd not ever have such things running in the background. I'm surprised though that you saw no hitches in BF2142 during a defrag and virus scan. Granted, they are apparently being processed on different cores, the game you are running is on the same drive, no? Its not like theres extra sets of read/write heads for each core. If the game's on a different drive, then I could see that being a different story. Otherwise I'd say there must have been some form of drop in that games performance, no?
~
So, that brings us back to: is it worth spending the money now? I mean, everyone knows the prices will drop, especially if AMD (remember them? lol) ever comes out with their quad offerings. I also heard theres a price drop towards the end of July on current Intel offerings. DDR3's coming out sometime soon (I've seen mobos being made that support it). Sockets keep changing every time you turn around. $$ not everyone is making it, to keep upgrading and buying more and more. Is this a rising spiral of prosperity or downward death spin (crashing and burning)?
~
Oh I still have my dual core opty, just have it layin around in its box. I know, I know my FX 57 is just getting me by. :P I don't dare run anything else while playing online, though I tend to not let anything else run either (prolly wouldn't even I if had a Quad - my single core conservativeness).

Intentsly
(UT99~ [--]Torturia)

[Green_Day_584]

i got a dual core, and a 7600gt. ill be spiitin if i cant run UT3 on it..... which seems kinda likely it wont work.....

[dirkduncan]

core2duo sucks... intel sucks... AMD X2 is the only one which (if u pay more) uses hyperthreading... and is the only one with the ability to use 2 caches.
intel is only producing cheaper. but real gamers need AMD

better for overclocking too, i can clock my processor (AMD64 X2 4800+) to 3.2 ghz while stock (safe) it is only 2.4 ghz. that's pure ownage.

and AMD 64 X4 will use hyperthreading and 2 or 4 cores... the wil be able to hit 3.0 (stock) and that's why it is taking so long.

[toniglandyl]

lol @ dirk.
for the moment, and it's been like that for 6 months already, core2duo are the best CPUs.
AMD can bring more powerful CPUs afterwards, but for the moment, core2duo are the way to go.

[rhiridflaidd]

c2d gives better percentage overclock. AMD was ridiculous in dropping socket 939 so soon, despite promises not to move quickly to DDR2. There are plenty of ex AMD fans that would happily pop in a new powerful dual core into their socket 939 slot, but they choose the faster C2D since they had to buy new memory sticks reguardless.

But back to the point in hand.

The difference bewtwwen Core2Duo and AMD is less than people might imagine for gaming

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2...0/index.x?pg=3

Is one of the few relevant benchmarks I've encountered. What we really need is the same benchmarks using overclocked C2D's - which is what a lot of enthusiasts do with them.

edit

Looking carefully at these graphs, for Rainbow 6, 4 cores is equivalent to an additional 0.25mhz core speed at the high end, but the quad and duo 6600's have minimal diference.

V odd.

We need more benches!

[Luseferous]

core2duo sucks... intel sucks... AMD X2 is the only one which (if u pay more) uses hyperthreading... and is the only one with the ability to use 2 caches.
intel is only producing cheaper. but real gamers need AMD

better for overclocking too, i can clock my processor (AMD64 X2 4800+) to 3.2 ghz while stock (safe) it is only 2.4 ghz. that's pure ownage.

and AMD 64 X4 will use hyperthreading and 2 or 4 cores... the wil be able to hit 3.0 (stock) and that's why it is taking so long.

You seem confused. I recommend more pills.

[intentsly]

You seem confused. I recommend more pills.

But I'd say the lad you refer to is. I'm not a fan of Intel, and I do look forward to see if AMD can pull off getting a better (if not at least equal) Quad. If not, perhaps I'd go to the "darkside" and rue switching back later on (at least I'd hope I'd enjoy the ride).

Intentsly
(UT99~ [--]Torturia)

[Luseferous]

and I do look forward to see if AMD can pull off getting a better (if not at least equal) Quad.

As do I, though Barcelona/Agena look good on paper it seems AMD are having problems getting them to run at a decent speed. Still they have some months before launch to improve things.

[oldkawman1]

c2d gives better percentage overclock. AMD was ridiculous in dropping socket 939 so soon, despite promises not to move quickly to DDR2. There are plenty of ex AMD fans that would happily pop in a new powerful dual core into their socket 939 slot, but they choose the faster C2D since they had to buy new memory sticks reguardless.

But back to the point in hand.

The difference bewtwwen Core2Duo and AMD is less than people might imagine for gaming

http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2...0/index.x?pg=3

Is one of the few relevant benchmarks I've encountered. What we really need is the same benchmarks using overclocked C2D's - which is what a lot of enthusiasts do with them.

edit

Looking carefully at these graphs, for Rainbow 6, 4 cores is equivalent to an additional 0.25mhz core speed at the high end, but the quad and duo 6600's have minimal diference.

V odd.

We need more benches!

I totally agree, more benchmarks. Benchmarks will tell the tale. It's a waste of time just to speculate. Here are the UT2004 ones from Tom's,

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=430&chart=167

Not 100% sure exactly what will pop up, but, the intended page would show benchmarks, using umark 2.0 UT2004 benchmark. All 32 bit of course, no 64 bit ut2004 benchmark is available.

It shows the top dog as the Intel series 6800-6700-6600 Core2 and Quad chips running 135-115 fps. The top 5 slots are these chips, they run from $500-$1000 at Newegg. Obviously with a price range like that, the cost does not scale well to performance increases and losses. The Q6600 costs half of what the QX6700 and X6800 cost and has only slightly lower performance than them.

Then the next 32, are all AMD athlon 64 X2, FX, and 64 except for 2 Intel, the core 2 6400 and EE 965, running from 114 down to 79 fps. Lower than that it's about even. Obviously before the new Intel chips came out AMD ruled the gaming end of computing.

When UT3 comes out, or maybe I should say when the UT3 benchmark comes out it will be very interesting to see if the multi core chips make a leap ahead of the single cores. It will also be nice to see a 64 bit version of the UT3 benchmark since all chips are 64 bit now anyway.

I am running a single core AMD 64 San Diego chip at 2.7 Ghz, I am guessing the performance equivilant of something between the FX55 or FX60. No way to really know without a benchmark, just a guess. I paid like $75 for the chip last year and just picked up a couple in a closeout at half that as I plan on bumping up the clock and wanted to have a spare. The price to performance ratio is 10-20 times better than that of the top dogs. I do not see changing anything for a while even after AMD brings out it's 65nm chips. Unless maybe I can find some NOS socket 939 X2 chips somewhere and then only if the multi core really makes a difference in UT3. The benchmarks will have to convince me.

[rhiridflaidd]

Single vs dual- there's no doubt on that one
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/dualcore.html

The bottom line is that the UE3 engine maxes out 2 cores, and can thread on 2 more, which will give a marginal benefit - that's my reading.

So there's a 25% frames increase on 2 cores.

There's one catch to this. UT2004 is processor limited. I very much doubt if frames in UT3 will be processor limited - it's more likely to be graphics card limited.

So my AMD dual core, overclocked to 2650 with an x800 graphics card might survive with a 9800 graphics card, and might well outperform a quad core with a 8800.

[Luseferous]

For those interested Link, Looks like more troubles ahead for AMD until they can get the thing running at a competitive speed.

[Pittski]

well a dual-quadcore mobo would be nice, that'll get you 8. Then you can go quad-dual sli which will give you well 8 gpu's

your pc would choke so bad. it would run at snails pace 8 gigs or ram could not even support enough temp memory/speed to give and retrieve data they same time the processors are processing the data.

[intentsly]

For those interested Link, Looks like more troubles ahead for AMD until they can get the thing running at a competitive speed.

AMD just can't seem to get it together. I mean, unless Phenom's clock speed doesn't matter and they can get the performance out of 2GHz, it seems as though (from that article anyway) that Intel is going to continue to stomp on AMD. I think AMD needs some new blood.. or something.

Intentsly
(UT99~ [--]Torturia)

[Luseferous]

unless Phenom's clock speed doesn't matter and they can get the performance out of 2GHz

Thats the problem as I see it. From what I have read it is no more 'efficient' per clock cycle than the current Core2's. (possibly a little less)

[edit]

That is, If their claim of a 40% performance increase relates to the current Opterons. If it relates to (and is accurate) Core 2 then they will have a breathing space until Penryn comes out.

Whatever the figure relates to, AMD have not yet backed it up with any real benchmarks yet.

[DagnyTaggart]

I know this isn't the Anandtech forums, but would Windows XP support quad cores or would it be necessary to buy Vista?

[Luseferous]

Sure will. No need for Vista

[SKaREO]

Quad-core seems like overkill, a good 64-bit processor will probably do the trick, am I right? And some people talking about multi-core processors, they're sort of going out of style. Cell Broadband Engine Architecture is the future for PC gaming I bet.

[Benfica]

The point is, what is Intel going to do with those many transistors?

Honest, let's assume that they have the budget to spend 300mm2 of die area per CPU. What should they do, had more cores or more cache?

You see 1 to 2MB of L2 cache can be larger than a complete core. If more cores are not useful, then maybe caches larger than 4MB will not help much too, because either your current programs rarely touch most of it, 4MB is enough for what the Core2 can prefetch, the program is CPU intensive and uses small datasets, etc...

[gargorias]

I totally agree, more benchmarks. Benchmarks will tell the tale. It's a waste of time just to speculate. Here are the UT2004 ones from Tom's,

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.ht...=430&chart=167

Not 100% sure exactly what will pop up, but, the intended page would show benchmarks, using umark 2.0 UT2004 benchmark. All 32 bit of course, no 64 bit ut2004 benchmark is available.

It shows the top dog as the Intel series 6800-6700-6600 Core2 and Quad chips running 135-115 fps. The top 5 slots are these chips, they run from $500-$1000 at Newegg. Obviously with a price range like that, the cost does not scale well to performance increases and losses. The Q6600 costs half of what the QX6700 and X6800 cost and has only slightly lower performance than them.

Then the next 32, are all AMD athlon 64 X2, FX, and 64 except for 2 Intel, the core 2 6400 and EE 965, running from 114 down to 79 fps. Lower than that it's about even. Obviously before the new Intel chips came out AMD ruled the gaming end of computing.

When UT3 comes out, or maybe I should say when the UT3 benchmark comes out it will be very interesting to see if the multi core chips make a leap ahead of the single cores. It will also be nice to see a 64 bit version of the UT3 benchmark since all chips are 64 bit now anyway.

I am running a single core AMD 64 San Diego chip at 2.7 Ghz, I am guessing the performance equivilant of something between the FX55 or FX60. No way to really know without a benchmark, just a guess. I paid like $75 for the chip last year and just picked up a couple in a closeout at half that as I plan on bumping up the clock and wanted to have a spare. The price to performance ratio is 10-20 times better than that of the top dogs. I do not see changing anything for a while even after AMD brings out it's 65nm chips. Unless maybe I can find some NOS socket 939 X2 chips somewhere and then only if the multi core really makes a difference in UT3. The benchmarks will have to convince me.

Good site for comparing CPUs in many different scenarios. My E6600 is running at 3.6GB on stock cooling and I doubt if I would want a slow CPU like yours just because I thought the price to performance ratio was better in a game, I certainly wouldn't be getting the most out of my 8800GTX and my Windows and other Apps would be significantly slower in nearly every aspect. I gues if you want better you have a to pay a little extra and I,m quitely confident my system will kick your systems ass in UT3. You should try high poly modelling with 3DSMax on your system and then try it on mine and then you would probably be adding another little figure to your price to perfomance equation and that is TIME.

[Moloko]

Quote:Tim Sweeney- For multithreading optimizations, we're focusing on physics, animation updates, the renderer's scene traversal loop, sound updates, and content streaming.We are not attempting to multithread systems that are highly sequential and object-oriented, such as the gameplay.

So I guess people with quad core cpus won't see any benefit over those with dual core.

[UnSkilled]

Quote:Tim Sweeney- For multithreading optimizations, we're focusing on physics, animation updates, the renderer's scene traversal loop, sound updates, and content streaming.We are not attempting to multithread systems that are highly sequential and object-oriented, such as the gameplay.

So I guess people with quad core cpus won't see any benefit over those with dual core.

Maybe you are right but it's too late for me to think about it cause I already have my Quad core right now with a 8800gts 640mgs and 4gig of OCZ RAM

So benefit or not, I dont care I have it lol. (Sorry I had to say it cause I got it since 24h :P)