Six-core processors

/dream - so you can have a 12-core if you put two on a single motherboard? dang, that would be fast....with 4 x 4870X2's in quadfire for good measure..
 
Keeper said:
/dream - so you can have a 12-core if you put two on a single motherboard? dang, that would be fast....with 4 x 4870X2's in quadfire for good measure..
Click to expand...

why stop at two when you could have four :D ( Sun Fire X4450 Server can take 4x quad cores... maybe revision for 4x 6 cores :) )
 
Dang! I'm still still sitting with a single-core with Hyprthreading. Then again, I'm running Ubuntu, so I'm not sure if it can make use of that kinda speed.
 
24 Wheel bike...

Come check out my 24-wheel bike!!!

Just jokes, I(more specifically, my computer..I am male, and unable to do so.) multitask like heck, so this might actually benefit me when it becomes more reasonably priced.
 
ThatOtherGuy said:
Dang! I'm still still sitting with a single-core with Hyprthreading. Then again, I'm running Ubuntu, so I'm not sure if it can make use of that kinda speed.
Click to expand...

Linux in general support multiple processors without a problem. No need for special versions. Might have to install the MP version of your kernel though, but is provided on the CD/DVD ;)
 
lol. developers still need to catch up to writing properly threaded code to take advantage of this.
 
6 cores...

thats sounds kinda ok , the big question one must ask oneself is are they linked as an n dimensional hypercube?

IE can each core communicate directly with every other core?

If not then the performance will be much slower than you think with a lot of communication going on.

For linear speedup (x6 speed) the internal links will have to be in an n-dimensional hypercube configuration.
 
Last edited:
Forget AMD playing catch up.Im tired of playing catch up with all these jumps in technology so rapidly.
I mean you buy a premium cpu today and next month your ignorant uncle
gets a state of the art 6 core for less!
I bet cpu's will eventually stop increasing cores and revert into a single chip that trounces 70 cores!
Whats next? 15 gpu's linked in tandem?
I guess thats just the way technology works.
However wouldnt a single chip with AI be better then adding cores?
Humans have many cores in their brains.......
 
demon angel said:
Forget AMD playing catch up.Im tired of playing catch up with all these jumps in technology so rapidly.
I mean you buy a premium cpu today and next month your ignorant uncle
gets a state of the art 6 core for less!
I bet cpu's will eventually stop increasing cores and revert into a single chip that trounces 70 cores!
Whats next? 15 gpu's linked in tandem?
I guess thats just the way technology works.
However wouldnt a single chip with AI be better then adding cores?
Humans have many cores in their brains.......
Click to expand...

afaik they have reached the end of what they practically can do with silicon - the only way out is to add more cores.

also, afaik multi-cores are better for multitasking.

i think they will say "64-core" instead of "64-MHz"....not really selling the MHZ, but the amount of cores it has.
 
next question, can i play games on it? will it improve framerate? :D
 
Dude.... imagine running a Linux machine on this (M$ can't harness this amount of power :D)...
 
I remember just before the launch of Core 2 Duo, the AMD fanboys were everywhere (I am not nocking them) and when the Core 2 Duo launched, the fanboys lost grounds, many switched, and the Core 2 Duo really hurt AMD badly.

Wonder if there are any fanboys left? All my systems at the moment are AMD, not of choice, but I had a core 2 duo before I left SA.
 
just crashed tooooooooooo fast for me
 
I think the PS3 has a 16 core processor if i'm not mistaken, the only OS that can really utilize this is linux. You can get a special edition of Linux that works on the PS3.

Multicore processing is defendant on the OS and the applications supporting it. I have a quad core and I know that vista only really starts using the last two cores when you add SP1. So to get the benefit of the cores it means that software will have to catch up. I think once all processors are multicore then you will see a lot more support for it...
The main thing is that 6 cores will never give you 6 times the speed so I think there has to be some limit to the amount you can add before you wont see any more performance. IE the difference between 30 cores and 40 cores will be almost nothing.
Imagine if 10 cores are trying to access the HDD at the same time...its impossible, 9 cores will have to wait.

This tech is just going to hold us over until the next big thing
 
Farquaon said:
I remember just before the launch of Core 2 Duo, the AMD fanboys were everywhere (I am not nocking them) and when the Core 2 Duo launched, the fanboys lost grounds, many switched, and the Core 2 Duo really hurt AMD badly.

Wonder if there are any fanboys left? All my systems at the moment are AMD, not of choice, but I had a core 2 duo before I left SA.
Click to expand...

I believe there still is. ;) With the release of their new graphics card, I honestly don't think that they need to worry about defeating Intel in the battle of the processors.

As for the release of a 6-core processor, I have to give it to Intel for keeping their spot as number one processor manufacturer! As for the rest of us, not being able to benefit from this running a M$ OS and having software not being able to fully make use of all 6-cores, it's kinda selfish :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X