Slashdot Mirror
Intel And AMD's Dual-Core CPUs Investigated
Hack Jandy writes "Anandtech has a bunch of insider information concerning Intel and AMD's move to dual-core CPUs. The article has lots of great information on how the move to dual-core processors affects modern computing - in particular, Anand sees more promise in multiple CPU cores that perform different operations, rather than just stamping two identical cores on the same processor like AMD and Intel are doing now."
The best way to evaluate the impact of dual core CPUs on the desktop is to look at the impact by moving to a multiprocessor setup on the desktop. The vast majority of applications on the desktop are still single threaded, thus garnering no real performance benefit from moving to dual core. The areas that we saw improvements in thanks to Hyper Threading will see further performance improvements due to dual core on both AMD and Intel platforms, but in most cases buying a single processor running at a higher clock speed will end up yielding higher overall performance.
>Anand sees more promise in multiple CPU cores that perform different operations
Aren't they called 'CPU' and 'GPU'?
The applications simply aren't there, as AnandTech mentions. Hyperthreading, for instance, did not cause sudden and dramatic speed improvements. The only benefits we're going to see are with applications specifically written for multiprocessor systems. These can take full advantage of the strengths of dual core CPUs.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
I think they should dynamicly change the clock speed based on heat content. Have a max hz, then have it slow down the hotter it gets. Then you could remove the cpu fan and not worry about it, save the fact that it would be slow as dirt.
I think the CPUs would be the same speed sorta. Just have one tweaked for say floats and the other something else. If you have a float heavy process you use core 0 and otherwise core 1. You can end up with the same CPI for standard loads but with some programs would do better with one than the other, as they aren't standard.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Well, if you tried working on SMP machine it's quite a bit different feeling really. You can't quantify it but it flows smoother. Which is not too surprising IMHO. I wished sub-$150 SMP motherboards for AthlonXP become commonplace (even if now it's a bit too late, but maybe socket754 ones). As for single CPU at higher clock speed, well 2x mainstream frequency CPUs are often simply not available, even if they are, they cost much, much more than 2x.
And just like the highway, people are more interested in driving faster than sucking up the cost of making roads wider "just in case".
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The way I see it, every CPU package has essentially a 'thermal envelope' that you can't go beyond without drastically changing case designs or cooling methods. For passively cooled CPU's this would be in the order of 10W, for actively cooled CPU's the ~100W figures for some desktop Pentium 4's are pushing the limit.
Instead of pushing things like BTX cases or watercooling, I'd rather see chipmakers use new technology to improve thermal/power ratio of their chips. I don't need a CPU that's 3 times as fast, upping power consumption once again. Give me a CPU that does twice the work using a smaller amount of energy.
There's lots of room for improvement here. Examples: when a CPU sits idle, does that mean a drastic drop in power consumption? In many cases: no. Win9x systems drop into a full power no-op running loop, and 'halt' state power consumption only works well with newer CPU's when chipsets are configured to enable a low-power state. Often, this isn't the case, for whatever reason.
Then take mobile CPU's (in same physical package), and features like varying core voltage with CPU load (Speedstep, PowerNow! or whatever). Nice, but many desktop motherboards or BIOS'es don't support it, or have it disabled. IMHO, chipmakers like AMD or Intel would better focus on improved motherboard/chipset/BIOS support for these things (through co-operation with mobo makers), than just making their CPU's faster.
And yes, I do know AMD is on the right track here with their x86-64 chips ('Cool 'n Quiet'). Maybe one reason their desktop market share is doing so well lately? I'd go for it, anyway.
Treat mod points like diseases - get rid of them as quick as you can.
At least yesterday they were still in.
Amds dual core chips dont use a local HT link to for core-core communication. They have both cores linked to a crossbar, which also has ports for the HT-links and the memory controller.
So a dual core chip still has 3 outgoing ht links, allowing to use 8 dual core chips in one system without "glue"
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
On a single CPU system, the X client and server compete for time. It can sometimes be faster to run certain apps over a fast network than locally on the same machine.
On a dual machine or multi-core machine the client and server can both be given time on separate CPUs or presumably different cores on the one CPU.
Deleted
Maybe we'll see dual-core CPUs where the second core does some
of the 3D-calculation today's graphics chipsets do?
That would certainly be useful for some fields of math.
I think Anand was suggesting that in his article. While the schedulers of Linux and some of the other OSes may be able to handle that, I don't think you want to go that way given the hacks that are used in schedulers, e.g. the hack that Linux uses when running a high priority and a low priority thread on the same hyperthreaded processor. All system accounting is done in terms of processor run time and on an ASMP system, run times aren't going to be equal.
This is a tricky time for hardware manufacturers - how to promote upgrades which are essentially placeholders for a new hardware generation - and hope like hell that Microsoft will actually promote applications that will use that new functionality. Because Microsoft can afford to lose their R&D money, Intel and AMD cannot.
Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to true 64-bit dual core architectures on the PC platform, but unless something amazing happens in the next 12 months, Microsoft will again be the gatekeeper to the mass uptake of that hardware, geek rage and linux notwithstanding. The shark will get it's DRM when the makers are appropriately terrified, and even then they may not make their money back.
From a manufacturer/reseller point of view, it's not looking all that certain. Uncertainty is deadly to the CPU/mainboard market, and I'm seeing it in the hedged bets of computer swapmeets and resellers. The explosion of mp3 players, digital cameras, dvd burners and the astonshing fall in solid state memory might take up the slack for now, but that still means those crucial early-adopters aren't looking at the new goods.
We live in interesting times.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Everyone multitasks nowadays anyway... most everyone has a firewall, a virus scanner and an instant messanger system and/or email program running on their desktop at all times, no? Laptop users usually have several applets running on top of these as well.
Beyond those basics, most ppl I know that use a computer have a great deal more running in the background.
The idea that "Joe Average" doesn't multitask might have been true at one point, but it isn't anymore.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Intel's P4 can't go any faster because of heat, and they can't do anything about it.
The hell they can't. Three words would fix Intel's heat situation easily: Desktop Pentium M. Where can I buy such a motherboard?
There were some wierd Mac variations in the 1980s with a second CPU on a plug-in board. They could run Photoshop faster, but otherwise were useless.
There are really only two multi-CPU architectures that are generally useful: shared-memory symmetrical multiprocessors, and networked clusters with no shared memory. Many other architectures have been tried - partially shared memory machines, shared-memory machines where some CPUs lacked some features like floating point, hypercubes, single-instruction-multiple-datastream machines, and dataflow processors. None has achieved lasting success.
About the only unusual architecture ever sold in volume is the Playstation 2, with two vector processors. Even there, the vector processors are mostly used as a GPU. (Although one major game physics engine actually runs in the PS2 vector processors, an impressive achievement.)
Programming for wierd architectures is hard, requires much tool development, and results in programs tied to specific hardware. So it doesn't happen much. That's why the wierd architectures fail. They're never that much faster, and by the time the software works, the hardware market is somewhere else.