PDA

View Full Version : While AMD is working on "triple core"... Intel is...


Tygerwoody
09-18-07, 07:55 PM
Working on 8 core and 12 core. Good going AMD. You continue to "save money" while Intel actually works on improving current technology. :thumbsup:

http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_6928288


And people wonder why AMD can't catch up :rolleyes:

ccxvi
09-18-07, 08:38 PM
I'm not buying it...

Four cores is already stretching the limits of what's necessary... but eight? People like me are better off with four, faster cores.

The twelve core one doesn't impress me that much, either. It's a graphics processor. Jesus, some of the newest cards have over 100. Double-digit core counts are so yesteryear.

Rev 2.0
09-18-07, 08:38 PM
Are they actually working on a triple core, or is the triple core just a quad with a non-working core?

buffbiff21
09-18-07, 08:50 PM
More the merrier. Either way it's good for the consumer because then everything else will drop in price.

Airbrushkid
09-18-07, 08:58 PM
Why more cores. Why not make faster cpu's. Wouldn't it be nice to see a 10 gig cpu with say 1 to 4 cores. It seems they hit block in the road of speed so that make cpus with more cores.

|MaguS|
09-18-07, 09:01 PM
With more cores you can actually give each process a good amount of processing power which just more mhz wouldn't and processes would have to juggle the cpus processing power.

A quadcore 3Ghz machine can handle more work load then a 4ghz dualcore machine. You have to take your mind off gaming and think on how this would help businesses and science facilities.

rhink
09-18-07, 09:38 PM
I'm not buying it...

Four cores is already stretching the limits of what's necessary... but eight? People like me are better off with four, faster cores.

The twelve core one doesn't impress me that much, either. It's a graphics processor. Jesus, some of the newest cards have over 100. Double-digit core counts are so yesteryear.

Get used to it. We've run out of ways to make single core chips faster until we come up with a whole new computing paradigm, and/or come up with new materials to make chips out of (there's several in the works but they're a ways from market).

Anyways, how do you determine what's "necessary"? That's oddly reminiscent of the Bill Gates "I can't imagine anyone needing more than 640 kbytes of RAM" statement... some people said processors were "fast enough" when they hit 1 ghz. There will *always* be a use for more processing power.

Technoholic
09-18-07, 11:14 PM
The more speed coming out of a single core processor will and can melt the metal of the processor. Would you want that? That's why dual core was made, then comes the quad core, then comes the eight cores. It's a good thing...IMO.

jcrox
09-18-07, 11:19 PM
I would venture a guess that 8 and 12 core systems are geared almost exclusively for the business sector. While the enthusiasts will pick it up they only amount to something like .03% of the market. It's nothing the average person will even ever think about.

Bearclaw
09-19-07, 10:50 AM
I would venture a guess that 8 and 12 core systems are geared almost exclusively for the business sector. While the enthusiasts will pick it up they only amount to something like .03% of the market. It's nothing the average person will even ever think about.
Down the road we will. Technology will always advance forward and as it does so will the processinf power not only business's will need but home consumers, and gamers as well

nekrosoft13
09-19-07, 11:01 AM
Otellini added that a product the company plans to demonstrate in 2008 - called Larrabee - will compete in the high-end graphics chip market against products from Nivdia and AMD's ATI graphics unit.

interesting

jcrox
09-19-07, 11:27 AM
Otellini added that a product the company plans to demonstrate in 2008 - called Larrabee - will compete in the high-end graphics chip market against products from Nivdia and AMD's ATI graphics unit.

I'll believe the "compete" part when I see some actual numbers,

Riptide
09-19-07, 11:54 AM
WTF. AFAIK the average game still doesn't even fully utilize dual cores, let alone 8. Sure a workstation running apps specially designed might use up to 4 but 8 in a desktop still seems way overkill for anything currently or on the horizon.

XDanger
09-19-07, 02:01 PM
24 core FTW (alf)

$n][pErMan
09-19-07, 06:51 PM
I think I'll keep my Quad for awhile :p The more progress the better tho!

rhink
09-19-07, 08:05 PM
The more speed coming out of a single core processor will and can melt the metal of the processor. Would you want that? That's why dual core was made, then comes the quad core, then comes the eight cores. It's a good thing...IMO.

Sort of. I think multicore would have happened even apart from the power wall. Moore's law is still in force, and transistor counts are still doubling every 18 months or so (note that Moore's law says nothing of clock speeds). But we get *far* less than a doubling of performance for doubling the number of transistors in a single core chip anymore. So we throw those transistors at increased parallelism in the form of multicore. We'd have that issue regardless of how highly we could clock chips right now.

SH0DAN
09-21-07, 12:05 PM
[pErMan']I think I'll keep my Quad for awhile :p The more progress the better tho!



Huge ditto on both counts.