http://www.physorg.com/news108627457.html
Copyright 2006?
That's cool but there is hardly enough software to fully utilize a two core processor much less a four core unit.
Server applications are natually multi-core enabled this isn't for home use. Also ever since the Athlon was released AMD showed people that gigahertz aren't all the matters, they always had lower clocks, were competitive and sometimes outperformed the competitors.
I actually have a theory that the technology sector will tank seriously within a few years.
Why? Due to the simple fact that there is no practical demand for computers that are 4 times more powerful than the core2 duo system sitting on my desk right now.
Now they are selling a quad core "PC" with dual video cards totalling a gig of video ram and 16MB of L2 cache, and within a year or two they'll be selling an "8 core PC" with 2 dual core video cards and a total of 32-64MB of L2 cache, and who is going to need it? Seriously, nothing other than game developers, ISPs, data centers, and the U.S. Government even uses that sort of computing power, and it takes a major video game company as many as 5 or more years of developement to create a video game that actually "needs" a dual core processor anyway. My cousin's company, a data center, just gave him a 2 yr old SERVER for free because its obsolete, and one of the newer models does the job of 3 of 4 of that one.
But normal people don't have any use for these computers other than "bragging rights".
Why? Due to the simple fact that there is no practical demand for computers that are 4 times more powerful than the core2 duo system sitting on my desk right now.
Now they are selling a quad core "PC" with dual video cards totalling a gig of video ram and 16MB of L2 cache, and within a year or two they'll be selling an "8 core PC" with 2 dual core video cards and a total of 32-64MB of L2 cache, and who is going to need it? Seriously, nothing other than game developers, ISPs, data centers, and the U.S. Government even uses that sort of computing power, and it takes a major video game company as many as 5 or more years of developement to create a video game that actually "needs" a dual core processor anyway. My cousin's company, a data center, just gave him a 2 yr old SERVER for free because its obsolete, and one of the newer models does the job of 3 of 4 of that one.
But normal people don't have any use for these computers other than "bragging rights".
I need as much power for my home computer as I can get, its not bragging rights, it power to do multi-tasking at a fast rate. I look back to 5 years ago and could not imagine using that computer to do the same tasks I demand of my computer today. It would take forever, if it could even do it. I do agree it has reached a point where it takes too much time to write a sophisticated enough program that would take advantage of the hardware. This is were we need a breakthrough, a whole new way of writing code more efficiently. I don't see the computer industry tanking at all. As for gamers, right now most have taken the easy way out and bought a console anyways. In a few years their 'hot' new graphics engine will look very dated.
Of course we would need more power! Much more! Hugely more!
And if someone doubts it, he probably has seen too little of computer evolution. Faster computers are better - sometimes to achieve new results, and not just to outweigh slower software.
Look, for 10 years a single small picture was a hard task for a good computer, this has improved now. A video sequence is a heavy load today, this must improve.
Problem is: computers don't improve that quickly these days, because semiconductor technology nears stalling.
And if someone doubts it, he probably has seen too little of computer evolution. Faster computers are better - sometimes to achieve new results, and not just to outweigh slower software.
Look, for 10 years a single small picture was a hard task for a good computer, this has improved now. A video sequence is a heavy load today, this must improve.
Problem is: computers don't improve that quickly these days, because semiconductor technology nears stalling.
QUOTE (taejonkwando+Sep 11 2007, 05:37 PM)
That's cool but there is hardly enough software to fully utilize a two core processor much less a four core unit.
True. True.
Sandra
True. True.
Sandra
sandra doliak I would explain to you that is diferent between one core technology and 2/4 cores technology. One core technology is like big penis, and two core technology is like two double smaller penis, and 4 cores technology is like 4 penis even more smaller (x/4) than bigest one.
QUOTE (DavidD+Apr 20 2008, 06:04 PM)
sandra doliak I would explain to you that is diferent between one core technology and 2/4 cores technology. One core technology is like big penis, and two core technology is like two double smaller penis, and 4 cores technology is like 4 penis even more smaller (x/4) than bigest one.
Hey, DavidD, yes you with the quarter scale penis.
What exactly is seriously wrong with your brain?
Hey, DavidD, yes you with the quarter scale penis.
What exactly is seriously wrong with your brain?
QUOTE (DavidD+Apr 20 2008, 06:04 PM)
sandra doliak I would explain to you that is diferent between one core technology and 2/4 cores technology. One core technology is like big penis, and two core technology is like two double smaller penis, and 4 cores technology is like 4 penis even more smaller (x/4) than bigest one.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Couldn't you use a piece of dynamite instead as an example?
(explosive power representing processes per minute or something?)
Ohhh, I get it.......
OK never mind then!
Sandra
What the hell is wrong with you?
Couldn't you use a piece of dynamite instead as an example?
(explosive power representing processes per minute or something?)
Ohhh, I get it.......
OK never mind then!
Sandra
One does cross multitask applications from time to time.
For instance 7-zip, simply.
But dual- or quad-cores could be useful more often than it seems. The OpenGL part of video drivers as well as DirectX both make use of several cores when available, so multicores benefit to 3D games even if these games are designed single-tasked.
Which certainly doesn't mean that performance is multiplied by 2 nor 4.
For instance 7-zip, simply.
But dual- or quad-cores could be useful more often than it seems. The OpenGL part of video drivers as well as DirectX both make use of several cores when available, so multicores benefit to 3D games even if these games are designed single-tasked.
Which certainly doesn't mean that performance is multiplied by 2 nor 4.
Did ya read about AMD three-core plus ATI GPU bonding? {drool, drool} With half decent MIMD for micro we'd be stepping in high cotton, especially with gigabit or better for the last mile! 
Ah! To come back to the world of computer technology and penises....i have truly been away far too long! 
Yes, you have. The Joint misses you, too!
QUOTE (tikay+Apr 24 2008, 10:26 PM)
Ah! To come back to the world of computer technology and penises....i have truly been away far too long!
Indeed you have! We've missed you somethign fierce. Well, I have at least. Sapo, too.
Indeed you have! We've missed you somethign fierce. Well, I have at least. Sapo, too.
QUOTE (DavidD+)
sandra doliak I would explain to you that is diferent between one core technology and 2/4 cores technology. One core technology is like big penis, and two core technology is like two double smaller penis, and 4 cores technology is like 4 penis even more smaller (x/4) than bigest one.
DubbaD, that is the worst analogy I've ever seen.
Here's a much better one. One that actually applies to the subject.
Single core processors with fast clock cycles (Ahem, intel, ahem) are like two-lane highways with a 70 mph speed limit. As long as only a few cars are on them, they can move very fast, but throw in too much traffic and it slows to a crawl. Multicore processors with lower clock cycles (Ahem, AMD, ahem) are like six-lane highways with 50 mph speed limits. When there's just a few cars on them, they're moving at just decent speeds, and when you throw in a buttload of traffic, they still move at decent speeds.
Here's an idea that Asus would do well to adopt:
Multi-core motherboards set up for AMD and Intel procesessors. Say two intel 3 Ghz processors for those massive spreadsheets and math applications, and 4 AMD 1.5 Ghz processors for all those video-games and graphics intensive applications. You'll double the price of the processor/motherboard combo (manufacturing techniques and increased production due to increased demand would keep the price from multiplying linearly) but get a 5-6X increase in performance. Toss in a 2Ghz graphics card with 2 gigs of ram, and you're talking movie-quality game engines for all those hard-core gamers otu there, and render times in the minutes for all of us 3D artists out there.
EDIT: 2 gigs of L2 cache and a 4 Ghz front side bus would be nice, too. (hint, hint.)
DubbaD, that is the worst analogy I've ever seen.
Here's a much better one. One that actually applies to the subject.
Single core processors with fast clock cycles (Ahem, intel, ahem) are like two-lane highways with a 70 mph speed limit. As long as only a few cars are on them, they can move very fast, but throw in too much traffic and it slows to a crawl. Multicore processors with lower clock cycles (Ahem, AMD, ahem) are like six-lane highways with 50 mph speed limits. When there's just a few cars on them, they're moving at just decent speeds, and when you throw in a buttload of traffic, they still move at decent speeds.
Here's an idea that Asus would do well to adopt:
Multi-core motherboards set up for AMD and Intel procesessors. Say two intel 3 Ghz processors for those massive spreadsheets and math applications, and 4 AMD 1.5 Ghz processors for all those video-games and graphics intensive applications. You'll double the price of the processor/motherboard combo (manufacturing techniques and increased production due to increased demand would keep the price from multiplying linearly) but get a 5-6X increase in performance. Toss in a 2Ghz graphics card with 2 gigs of ram, and you're talking movie-quality game engines for all those hard-core gamers otu there, and render times in the minutes for all of us 3D artists out there.
EDIT: 2 gigs of L2 cache and a 4 Ghz front side bus would be nice, too. (hint, hint.)
Ye Gods, man!
Two northbridge chipsets, and the support circuitry, plus another bridge chip to make the two processors talk to the memory bus and southbridge? We'll be moving back to full AT sized mainboards and liquid N₂ cooling!
Two northbridge chipsets, and the support circuitry, plus another bridge chip to make the two processors talk to the memory bus and southbridge? We'll be moving back to full AT sized mainboards and liquid N₂ cooling!
QUOTE (Sapo+Apr 25 2008, 11:23 AM)
Ye Gods, man!
Two northbridge chipsets, and the support circuitry, plus another bridge chip to make the two processors talk to the memory bus and southbridge? We'll be moving back to full AT sized mainboards and liquid N₂ cooling!
I can deal with an AT size motherboard, but we could get past the cooling issues by using cpu fans and giving a bit of space between the processors. Maybe include a 7th and 8th processor (like little 750Mhz thingies) to divy up and then recombine the information better, so there's no need to coordinate the processes, then you could have the processors scattered all over the board!
I dunno, I got my A+ years ago, and I never got into computer sciences hardcore, so I'm no expert, there's probably reasons why nobody's invented such a monster before!
Two northbridge chipsets, and the support circuitry, plus another bridge chip to make the two processors talk to the memory bus and southbridge? We'll be moving back to full AT sized mainboards and liquid N₂ cooling!
I can deal with an AT size motherboard, but we could get past the cooling issues by using cpu fans and giving a bit of space between the processors. Maybe include a 7th and 8th processor (like little 750Mhz thingies) to divy up and then recombine the information better, so there's no need to coordinate the processes, then you could have the processors scattered all over the board!
I dunno, I got my A+ years ago, and I never got into computer sciences hardcore, so I'm no expert, there's probably reasons why nobody's invented such a monster before!
TMC and CRAY, not to mention Big Blue, did, but nowadays it's cheaper to put clusters in a 19" rack.
Still, it'd make a hell of a taco warmer!
Still, it'd make a hell of a taco warmer!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.