just hear about the update on msnbc.
here's the article from their news website:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15016757/
Printable View
just hear about the update on msnbc.
here's the article from their news website:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15016757/
Ooh, I'm all tingly inside. :inquisitive: :dizzy2:
Seriously now, AMD is also scheduled to release quad core chips in the not too distant future but I don't believe they released a timetable for their release yet. In any case it looks like AMD is going to have its work cut out for it in 2007. I seriously hope AMD can surpass or equal Intel's performance with their next generation of chips. I shudder to think what would happen if AMD was back to minor league status.
But remember AMD now own ATI, so if thier CPU's go back to minor league they will still have the awesom X1950XTX's, and will probably develope the X2000 series. AMD wil proably release a CPU-GPU-mobo combo dirt cheap, that will be a success!
w00t, my new coimputer will be outdated by the time I get it i~:cheers:
Here's a slightly more detailed article. Not really clear how much real-world benefit we'll be seeing from four cores. In the near-term, anyway. I know, I know, someday all software will be multi-threaded ...
It isn't now ? Damn :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Well, at least we'll be able to multi-task much faster ! :oops:
It is especially irksome when you consider that most games don't take advantage of multi-threading. Games are the most cpu intensive and resource hungry applications out there and yet developers are seemingly dragging their collective tails in exploiting this CPU technology to the fullest. This draws a stark contrast to the industry's obsession with incorporating the latest and greatest 3D rendering techniques into their games.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
When you think about it, there's nothing to complain about being able to multi-task while playing your favorite game at buttery smooth framerates. However it would be really nice if that second CPU core could also be utilized for things like in-game physics calculations or to improve the AI routines.
Just simple, don't but them till they start getting used.
Im quite happy with my amd 4200+ x2 thank you very much :)
Tib
The question in my mind is: Why the hell are we supposed to start buying seperate physics cards when we have dual and soon-to-be quad core chips that are only using a fraction of their capacity in terms of gaming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Screw physics cards and start using the available processing power.
Not all chips are equal.
Some have specialised functions so that if everything else was equal the specialist chip will out perform an equivalent generalist chip.
CPUs are the generalists... Maths co-processors, GPUs and physics cards are the specialists... I do think with time if something becomes common place the functions are added to the general chip set/board (sound, maths) etc.
Here we go:linkQuote:
Intel's Extreme chip products are aimed at hard-core gamers who want every smidgen of performance, and game producers are working to adapt their software. One such company is Remedy, which demonstrated a game called "Alan Wake" at the Intel show.
The game is designed to farm tasks to different processor cores, said Markus Maki, director of development, in an interview. There are three major program threads and each can occupy a core of its own: one for the main game action, one for simulating physics of game objects and one for preparing terrain information that's later sent to the graphics chip for rendering. A fourth core can handle other threads, including playing sound and retrieving data from a DVD, Maki said.
I'd much rather see multi-threaded games that take advantage of multi-core cpus than being expected to lay out the extra cash for a physics card that you have to cram into a slot in your case.
Where is the end of this line?
I mean I feel like a stupid to be seeing that the next innovation will be octo cores, then sixteen cores and so on.
This kind of marketing is purely making fool of the customer: let's add another pair and find a mysterious code name for the CPU and get the money.
my *** :furious3:
Um, you're pretty much spot-on. Intel aims for 32 cores by 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
How innovative. CPU architects now know how to count numbers in computer terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Actually you're wrong about the 'making a fool of the consumer' stuff... well, sort of.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Yes, essentially this all comes down to making money and seeing how much of it consumers are willing to spend in order to have the latest and greatest widget. However, it is AMD's existence coupled with its ever increasing market share which has forced both it and Intel to pour oodles of cash into R&D so as to keep churning out new and improved processor designs which allow them to stay competitive with one another. It may be frustrating to be caught amidst a processor (or GPU) war that doesn't offer much breathing room for the performance minded consumer but this anxiety should be offset by the fact that consumers can buy a reasonably fast processor for surprisingly little money (relative of course to what processors used to cost back when AMD was a minor player in the x86 market).
Multi-core processors are the next logical step in the equation as far as existing chip technology is concerned and there's no turning back. In order to address issues such as heat and the physical limitations of manipulating silicon and other materials at the nanometer level chip makers simply had to turn to multi-core designs. Creating processors which sport multiple cpu cores allow AMD and Intel to continue to increase performance while avoiding the problems associated with producing single core chips which run at ridiculously high speeds, consume tons of power and generate lots of heat.
Last but not least, as that article pointed out, multi-core processors are a good thing as far as game development is concerned. I'd much prefer to have a reasonably priced multi-core processor which can delegate tasks related to physics, AI, etc. to each of its cores instead of being forced to plunk down a serious chunk of change for dedicated, specialized add-in cards.
Terascaling... its the future.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=302
Eight cores the future ? The future is now!
So for those counting along, thats one chip with 8 cores, which can handle 4 threads. So thats up to 32 simultanoues processing threads. Right now.Quote:
Location CPU Freq Implementation
-------------------------------------------------------
Core 0: MB/CMP0/P0 0 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P1 1 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P2 2 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P3 3 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
Core 1: MB/CMP0/P4 4 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P5 5 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P6 6 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P7 7 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
Core 2: MB/CMP0/P8 8 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P9 9 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P10 10 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P11 11 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
Core 3: MB/CMP0/P12 12 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P13 13 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P14 14 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P15 15 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
Core 4: MB/CMP0/P16 16 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P17 17 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P18 18 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P19 19 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
Core 5: MB/CMP0/P20 20 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P21 21 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P22 22 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P23 23 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
Core 6: MB/CMP0/P24 24 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P25 25 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P26 26 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P27 27 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
Core 7: MB/CMP0/P28 28 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P29 29 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P30 30 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
MB/CMP0/P31 31 1200 MHz SUNW,UltraSPARC-T1
_Martyr_, that pcper article was a very good read. anybody interested in where computers are heading should read that article.
whyidie, what kind of computer are you running? i am guessing the quad core chip coming out is for us common users and that some buisnesses and research centers already have access to these chips.
Spino, good point. maybe someday even video cards may become a thing of the past, with the central processor doing everything.Quote:
Last but not least, as that article pointed out, multi-core processors are a good thing as far as game development is concerned. I'd much prefer to have a reasonably priced multi-core processor which can delegate tasks related to physics, AI, etc. to each of its cores instead of being forced to plunk down a serious chunk of change for dedicated, specialized add-in cards.
The reason for that is not everyone has a multicore CPU. To do that might mean that the game won't run on single core CPU's. Which reduces who can use their product. Given the state of PC gamming that's not good at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Yeah, thats definitely on the cards, its one of the many reasons AMD bought ATI. Dedicated cores specifically for GPU functions, one for Sound, others for Crypt functions, maybe a network adapter core and God knows what else all on a single die with EXTREMELY high bandwidth and bus speed and VERY low latency and low power consumption. What bothers me about this is that once produced, this new format cannot be upgraded. You would have to buy a new everything if you just wanted a newer GPU. Not the best for gamers...Quote:
Spino, good point. maybe someday even video cards may become a thing of the past, with the central processor doing everything.
Games such as Quake4 and Oblivion take advantage of SMP. Its slowly becoming the norm now that a high percent of new CPUs being sold are multi-coreQuote:
The reason for that is not everyone has a multicore CPU. To do that might mean that the game won't run on single core CPU's. Which reduces who can use their product. Given the state of PC gamming that's not good at all.
Very much correct highlanddave. I throw it in the ring just as a reminder that innovation doesn't just happen with the two big consumer CPU makers.Quote:
Originally Posted by highlanddave
This particular model is a T2000 from Sun Microsystems:
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t2000/index.xml
Shared L2 cache is a bit of a crux at the moment, but in terms of how many cores can you throw on it, 8 is a high number! Plus it does do a pretty incredible job on low FPU, low cache transactions.
In terms of dedicated chips they are developing a processor that will have "NIC on a chip". Which translates to a more direct path to the CPU for network transactions. I'm not clear on the specifics of the architecture.
In a similar vein I think Fujitsu will be releasing a chip that will have a CPU dedicated to IO transactions.
So yes, specialization is on the way.