1 little, 2 little, 4 little CPU cores?

[uncledumpy]

Ok- I’m done talking about GoW, lets talk UT2k7 for the PC!

So I’m waiting for the demo to be released to build my next PC.... What’s the latest hype on the number or cores that will be used for the client side?

[Hedge-o-Matic]

This is a good question. the sooner we learn this sort of thing, the sooner we can compile our perfect PC. I'm hoping for a 64-core with a couple of terabytes of RAM, personally, but I'll settle for a quad.

[TheGUN]

Oooooh joy... long time, no pc gaming... this is going to be expensive :P

[Xipher]

This is a good question. the sooner we learn this sort of thing, the sooner we can compile our perfect PC. I'm hoping for a 64-core with a couple of terabytes of RAM, personally, but I'll settle for a quad.

Ehh, I would say 64 cores in about ten years. At least those are the numbers I have heard coming from Intel.

[MonsOlympus]

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

[Guru7892]

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

wait, wouldn't that process Everything Ever? (even all the internet, yes that part too)

[The5thviruz]

Ehh, I would say 64 cores in about ten years. At least those are the numbers I have heard coming from Intel.

IBM and Intel already have loads of cores on a processor. It far exceeds 64.

As for the average (well sort of) consumer, in a few weeks/months Intel's quad core xeon processors will be put into workstations. Of course, being Xeons, they can run along side each other so you'll get 8 cores to play with. Most people won't need all of those...I will for video and audio editing. I already take up close to 400% CPU usage while encoding video. The more cores, the better

[A_Spec]

The big question is; when will these processors be availible to the standard consumer for a reasonable price. And by reasonable I mean somewhere in the €200 - €300 price range.

[placebo]

I have four cores in my comp so I sure hope UT2k7 can at least take advantage of two of them.

[Gearbox]

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

Hey, this could happen sooner than you think. There's already a case out for it:

http://www.epinions.com/Whirlpool_GC...ay_~full_specs

[Hedge-o-Matic]

IBM and Intel already have loads of cores on a processor. It far exceeds 64.

As for the average (well sort of) consumer, in a few weeks/months Intel's quad core xeon processors will be put into workstations. Of course, being Xeons, they can run along side each other so you'll get 8 cores to play with. Most people won't need all of those...I will for video and audio editing. I already take up close to 400% CPU usage while encoding video. The more cores, the better

If you were to theoretically, have 8 cores worht of Xeons to use, would an application be able to access the power, or would code need to be specially optimized for x-cores? Since I do a ton of rendering and 3D work, this would be really useful, obviously, but will 2k7 be able to use this processor capacity?

[The5thviruz]

If you were to theoretically, have 8 cores worht of Xeons to use, would an application be able to access the power, or would code need to be specially optimized for x-cores? Since I do a ton of rendering and 3D work, this would be really useful, obviously, but will 2k7 be able to use this processor capacity?

I doubt UT2007 would *need* this much power. It would be more of a strain on your graphics card(s) than the CPUs.

At the moment, my video encoding program on Mac OS X takes advantage of all 4 xeon cores while in action. It depends on the program you use.

[placebo]

Heh, you have a Mac Pro too?

[The5thviruz]

Heh, you have a Mac Pro too?

Yep. My iMac G5 was taking too long with everything I needed. I'll be getting one of the new ones too...hopefully Leopard will be out with it :P

Dare I test them both with Xgrid? :O

[placebo]

You could do some damned fast video encoding if your program has an Xgrid plugin.

[prograham]

And this thread really drives at the core (sorry) of the whole hardware issue for K7... is it multi-core friendly?

K4 technically was, audio would be processed on a 2nd core if available, but I imagine the audio load alone is only about 3% of everything processed.

Something tells me it's going to be dual core friendly only - any more cores than that will be ignored. But this time it will truly be processing on two cores, each sharing the load 50/50.

From my experience only encoding/rendering takes advantage of multiple cores, or file servers doing whatever they do. But for an application that is running, changing, varying itself constantly such as video game - I just think programming for a scalable core architecture for something like that would be too much. Plus, they started developing this engine forever ago, I don't think even they saw that so many cores would be used by consumers so soon.

Here's looking forward to UT2KX for all us Mac Pro luckies.

[MonsOlympus]

Hey, this could happen sooner than you think. There's already a case out for it:

http://www.epinions.com/Whirlpool_GC...ay_~full_specs

I wouldnt have said it otherwise, I know asus have boards on the market atm which support a single quadcore processor and have 4 pcie graphics slots. Theres the 7950gx2's which are 2 gpu's on a single board which can run in sli. Really its just the next logical step

[prograham]

Ok I'll bite... what's up with the fridge link?

[MonsOlympus]

Looks like a nice case to me, similar to my p180

[MindRiot]

When the majority of new game releases for the PC are designed for Dual-core processors, then I'll upgrade to a X2 processor.

Until that day, which isn't anytime soon, you're best choice for a new CPU for gaming is an Athlon 64 FX-64 Windsor @ 2.8Ghz or any other FX for that matter. With that CPU in a Crossfire or SLi configuration you're games would be blazing on your monitor.

Unless you have to multitask a multitude of application simultaneously, which I don't, then owning a dual core right now would make sense.

[ScooB]

When the majority of new game releases for the PC are designed for Dual-core processors, then I'll upgrade to a X2 processor.

Until that day, which isn't anytime soon, you're best choice for a new CPU for gaming is an Athlon 64 FX-64 Windsor @ 2.8Ghz or any other FX for that matter. With that CPU in a Crossfire or SLi configuration you're games would be blazing on your monitor.

Unless you have to multitask a multitude of application simultaneously, which I don't, then owning a dual core right now would make sense.

Could you make a worse recommendation?
Paying 2 or 3 times as much for a CPU that gets owned by Core2Duo is a
pretty useless thing to do.

Should we all go buy some Enron stock too?

[Lee_Shagwell]

The only time a modern processor is ever stressed is when you are running a program whoes sole purpose is to crunch numbers as fast as possible. i.e. encoding, sepcialised rendering etc.

From what I've heard games don't fall into this category, because

a) almost everything is done on the graphics card
b) moving through a game world is controlled by a human, theres lots of times the processor will be doing very little and waiting for you to move a mouse.
c) highly detailed physics models can be rendered off chip using a physics card.

Now if someone wants to correct me on this with proof (a few extra fps from a faster processor in 3d mark isn't proof) then I'll happily except that.

I have a dual core processor myself, and I've yet to see any game (or anything usefull) that makes real use of the dual core. If anything it's a pain in the ass because if you don't disable the second core, the game your playing will lag.

Sure the next UT will support dual core but one has to ask, does it actually need to use that second core to the point where the game will be unplayable if it didn't, or is it just doing it to be more efficient.

So apart from video encoding and highly speciliased stuff what benefits will multi core actually bring to the PC if processor specs are already way ahead of most programs requirements?

I wish manufacturers would start developing other aspects of the PC before all this multi core stuff, I think Im right when I say we all need solid state storage to replace hard drives now.

Hard drives are like a joke thats just not funny. Switching on a PC in the year 2007 and waiting 10 seconds for it to load windows is not funny,

Your average consumer (who doesn't care about specs) is going to ask "How will this benefit me" solid state storage benefits everyone, multicore on the other hand, doesn't.

[Kea]

What many people don't realize is that a multi-core CPU or multi-CPU gives a better performance even if applications are single-threaded and do not explicitly take advantage of it. The multi-processing nature lends off cores to let a single-threaded game grab close 100% of one core, while letting all little background processes on another leaving the game process uninterrupted by other processes. The result is smoother performance and if a background process should suddenly decide to hog CPU power it wouldn't do the game much.
However, the cores share the L2 cache, so the problem of a program not being specifically optimised for multi-core by explicitly distributing its threads are more cache misses.
Even though the GPU and PPU can do very much, a lot still depends on the CPU to coordinate the whole system. The GPUs and PPUs can't work efficiently unless the CPU spends enough time culling unnecessary operations.
For any high-performance applications there is this push to use cycles wasted on doing something useful instead, hence more polygons or whatever.
So there's a very good reason to optimise the engine to take full advantage of whatever core count it might come across.

[chiefwhosm]

and of course the unreal engines in the past have always wanted a better cpu than gpu for performance.

[Lee_Shagwell]

What many people don't realize is that a multi-core CPU or multi-CPU gives a better performance even if applications are single-threaded and do not explicitly take advantage of it. The multi-processing nature lends off cores to let a single-threaded game grab close 100% of one core, while letting all little background processes on another leaving the game process uninterrupted by other processes. The result is smoother performance and if a background process should suddenly decide to hog CPU power it wouldn't do the game much..

Unfortunatly this just isn't true Kea, many people have had numerous problems with dual core, i'd say 70% of PC games require you to disable the 2nd core or else you experience major graphics lag / jerkyness.

[MonsOlympus]

ok got a question, will there be intel quadcore's with hyperthreading or is that what the current gen quadcores are? Like dualcore with hyperthreading.

[Kea]

Unfortunatly this just isn't true Kea, many people have had numerous problems with dual core, i'd say 70% of PC games require you to disable the 2nd core or else you experience major graphics lag / jerkyness.

True. But as a programmer I note that several documents on programming on win32/.NET report that games often rely on an unreliable ways of obtaining their timing. Many games are multi-threaded yet their code do not realize that if their threads run on different cores they'll run out of sync and timing mechanisms based on single-cores cause the jerkiness. So in a way one might say that a program has to take explicit advantage of multi-core.

[placebo]

Core 2 Duo is pure ownage. End of discussion. I have one and I'm running UT2k4 Onslaught at nearly 100FPS.

[chiefwhosm]

The question would be what is your graphics card, I mean I have a single core pentium M but I have a go 7800gtx and I get 80fps in onslaught, so if pure ownage is only 20fps more it isnt that much better.

[MindRiot]

Could you make a worse recommendation?
Paying 2 or 3 times as much for a CPU that gets owned by Core2Duo is a
pretty useless thing to do.

Should we all go buy some Enron stock too?

Honestly, I have no intention of buying a processor from chipzilla.

I have no desire to be an Intel b!tch and accomplice in driving AMD out of the high-end processor market.

The only Core2Duo that beats the FX-64 is the E6700

See this link: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518

What if they made a dual core FX-64?

It's true the FX-64 is considerably more expensive than the Core2Duo 6700. The FX-64 retails at newegg for $699, where the Core2Duo retails for $511.99

But, I'm willing to wager the following theories are true.

First, the reason we now have dual core processors is not that they are the next step in the evolution of processors, but because the expense of fabricating single-core processors beyond the current capabilities of single core processors is more expensive than fabricating processors with two cores. End of story.

Second, chipzilla is deliberately underwriting the cost of the Core2Duos to draw away the market share from AMD (Enron?). The Core2Duos should be as, if not more expensive, than the FX-64, the reason its not (has nothing to do with frabrication expenses), is to draw people like you away from AMD. This is basically Microsoft's strategy to run Sony into the ground over the next 20 years. Microsoft's willing to lose billions of dollars in the short run on the wager it will win the console war, and then profit from its monopolistic share of the market afterward, just as it has suceeded in doing with Windows (Enron?). Of course, this only helps stockholders, not you the consumer. As soon as Intel succeeds in its plans, it will raise the price of its processors, just as it has done so in the past, and then people will try to flock back to AMD for cheaper alternatives, if AMD is still producing high-end processors for the PC.

Of course, we have to wait out the results of the lawsuit between chipzilla and AMD.

Personally, I'm disgusted with the current state of affairs in the computer industry. When desktop PC's first hit the market, it was all about choice and custimization. There were many manufactures of computer components, now you have 2 CPU and 2 GPU manufacters, with ATI and AMD now merged. There is only a hand full of manufactures for each of the other hardware categories. Yesterday, when you shopped for a motherboard, all you need to decide was which CPU brand you were going to use, now you have to decide which kind of GPU, and which kind of HDD you are going to use. Back then you could upgrade without having to buy all new components, now you cannot. And as things now look, each chip maker is going to release a new socket design every two years.

[placebo]

Yeah but it should be different this time around since the polycount hasn't increased drastically but there are tons more shader and texture passes.

[MonsOlympus]

Honestly, I have no intention of buying a processor from chipzilla.

I have no desire to be an Intel b!tch and accomplice in driving AMD out of the high-end processor market.

The only Core2Duo that beats the FX-64 is the E6700

See this link: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34518

What if they made a dual core FX-64?

It's true the FX-64 is considerably more expensive than the Core2Duo 6700. The FX-64 retails at newegg for $699, where the Core2Duo retails for $511.99

But, I'm willing to wager the following theories are true.

First, the reason we now have dual core processors is not that they are the next step in the evolution of processors, but because the expense of fabricating single-core processors beyond the current capabilities of single core processors is more expensive than fabricating processors with two cores. End of story.

Second, chipzilla is deliberately underwriting the cost of the Core2Duos to draw away the market share from AMD (Enron?). The Core2Duos should be as, if not more expensive, than the FX-64, the reason its not (has nothing to do with frabrication expenses), is to draw people like you away from AMD. This is basically Microsoft's strategy to run Sony into the ground over the next 20 years. Microsoft's willing to lose billions of dollars in the short run on the wager it will win the console war, and then profit from its monopolistic share of the market afterward, just as it has suceeded in doing with Windows (Enron?). Of course, this only helps stockholders, not you the consumer. As soon as Intel succeeds in its plans, it will raise the price of its processors, just as it has done so in the past, and then people will try to flock back to AMD for cheaper alternatives, if AMD is still producing high-end processors for the PC.

Of course, we have to wait out the results of the lawsuit between chipzilla and AMD.

Personally, I'm disgusted with the current state of affairs in the computer industry. When desktop PC's first hit the market, it was all about choice and custimization. There were many manufactures of computer components, now you have 2 CPU and 2 GPU manufacters, with ATI and AMD now merged. There is only a hand full of manufactures for each of the other hardware categories. Yesterday, when you shopped for a motherboard, all you need to decide was which CPU brand you were going to use, now you have to decide which kind of GPU, and which kind of HDD you are going to use. Back then you could upgrade without having to buy all new components, now you cannot. And as things now look, each chip maker is going to release a new socket design every two years.

I take it you didnt see that post I made about being able to put p4 chips into the core 2 duo and quadcore boards using lga 775. Personally I just think its a smart move by intel to go this was as amd keep stuffing around with socket chages, thats something that should have been sorted out back when cyrix was still around. I mean damn the next chip to come out of amd's doors thats quadcore probably wont use am2 socket!

[MindRiot]

I mean damn the next chip to come out of amd's doors thats quadcore probably wont use am2 socket!

That's correct.

After AM2+ AM3+ AM4+, we have a new socket (same for Intel), all this by 2008.

See this link: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35902


Also, PCIe future not bright or long lived for graphic applications. GPU can be moved on the die and use a bus called a crossbar to join it to the cpu(s). So much for future proofing hardware components!

See this link: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35789

BTW: Both these companies (DAAMIT and NVIDA) are currently and actively developing CPUGPUs. In fact, DAAMIT is the largest supplier of portable gpu's, so the drive to integrate the CPU and GPU is very strong.

[Kea]

CPU clock frequency is approaching physical limits, it's already way beyond radio communication frequencies. There are still room to push for higher frequencies as research advances. The new wave of multi-core is similar to earlier days of the industry when a lot of hype was going into parallelism, then it was faster CPUs etc.

[MonsOlympus]

My question is why do they still bother with sockets at all if the gpu and cpu are going to get combind? I have also heard the inquirer isnt the best source for accurate information.

but...

At the very least, there will be an A64 socket and an Opteron socket, so that means 8 sockets in 2 years, one a quarter.

If this is true thats just bloody ridiculous!

[MindRiot]

but...

If this is true thats just bloody ridiculous!

Chipzilla isn't immune to this equation. They will also have to change socket. In fact, the push for this integrated dual CPUGPU technology is just as equally embraced by Intel as it is by DAAMIT. Who knows how many revision sockets before optimal layout is discovered or settled on.

Also, keep in mind that processors made for AM2 will fit in AM2+ and AM3, but won't be fully functional and vis-versa.

[MonsOlympus]

Yeah I saw that, atleast thats some saving grace for amd owners. Personally Im going to stick with intel, Im just happier giving them my money because I havent had any major problems with their chips ever. Not that Ive had huge problems with amd but in the past Ive felt alittle ripped off with the performance vs cost, yeah I know I could move on but since I game second and use alot of apps in windows I just find intel gives me better performance. I'll admit amd provide good price vs performance for gaming but most of the 64bit amd's Ive used are less then impressive for multitasking.

I know intel will move on with their lga775 but atm you have to be careful of the fsb of the mobo or a chip wont work. Usually it requires a certain chipset like 975 985 955x etc, to run things like EE's or processors with the higher bus where celerons are usually lower fsb so you dont need to fork out for 1033 or 1333. Also the RAM speed is determined by the chipset with DDR2 getting as high as 1044 or something silly with 667-800 being about standard for anything from the 915 chipset.

Another thing I noticed is the 7950 gx'2 require like a 945 chipset or higher so this might have something to do with the through put of the pcie. We should be seeing 32x pcie over a single slot shortly along with ddr3 so yeah sockets and slots will change eventually atm though Im putting my money on intel. Not because they happen to be the best bang for buck atm either!

[uncledumpy]

What’s the latest hype on the number or cores that will be used for the client side?

Wow, great feedback everyone- Thanks!

So in summary, most likely 2 cores will be supported and recommended for the client side for optimum gaming?

As many alluded to, and my old school way of building gaming pc’s was go with a single core (and I usually go with the 2nd fastest of what ever is on the market at the time to save some $$) processor, but it looks like this time around I’ll be going dual core.

Thanks again- Game on!
UD

[Kea]

No - most likely the engine will automatically scale for the number of cores when an ideal concurrent model has been implemented. Most tasks can be performed in parallel, and when they can, there's virtually no limit on many threads they can be broken into. Say, if the first stage of the physics collision pipeline has come up with a list of 400 potentially colliding objects, then the next stage could divide that task over any thread count it wants. Of course there's a practical limit. I don't think having more than 2 cores would hurt.

[Xipher]

Actually, their will be a limit, introduced either by the OS or the resources available. Spawning new threads while light weight, still takes time and resources. even if you spawn ahead of time using something like a thread pool, each thread does use a little memory for it's own stack.