Core Multiplexing technology??? [Archive]

Lestat

06-22-2006, 04:20 PM

reverse hyper threading ?
why would they do that ? that would focus totally on one core and not even bother with both.

by definition -

Multiplexing (also MUXing) is a term used in electrical engineering to refer to a process where multiple sources of information are combined in order to ease the organization, conversion and transportation of the material from one place to another. The information is usually held completely intact after it has been multiplexed but is transported in a different manner than normal.

in other words multiple sources of data shoved down 1 pipe.

so why in the hell would intel focus massive amounts of calls to the cpu to one core ? that would totally defeat the purpose of dual cores.

This is the absolute opposite of what we want ot achieve which is both cores cranking out at the same time.
Windows is not coded to use two cores, it maybe cpu capable but watch your task manager as you do things and 99% of the time everything is focused on one core/cpu while on small bits are focused on the second cpu/core.

very few apps are designed to utilize both cores or cpu's. and i am appauled at this in this day and age.

there should have been massive patches released by MS, and every other software maker to utilize dual cores. but there isnt.

so we are left with dual core cpus or such as my 955 XE a dual core wITH hyperthreading with MASSIVE amount of processing power just left idle doing nothing.

the only way multiplexing would work is if there was a way for the system to tell everything..
ok 50% of you go to this core and the other 50% go to the 2nd core.
then and only then would it do any good.

the other sid eof it would be the ability to allow sources of data coming from ram and hard drive and video to be handled super efficiently into one stream or multiple streams.
or maybe,, possibly some sort of a raid style data bursting down the throat of the cpu.
a little from this address a little from that address and back and forth back and forth until all data is processed.

it does however leave the door open for insane amounts of data corruption.

Lestat

06-22-2006, 04:23 PM

FCG. your thinking in reverse.....

multiplexing would make a 2.13ghz Conroe feel like a Kentsfield at ,, lets say 3 ghz.

the quad core can handle massive amounts of data while, for example, in simplest terms, the conroe can handle only half.
so with multiplexing the dual core cpu is being fed, data from multiple sources.

if a quad core was multiplexed it would be like a Octa-core.

vapb400

06-22-2006, 04:25 PM

WOW. :slobber: and it was as simple as a BIOS update.

Hope you guys are right (not doubting you for a second though :))

Lestat

06-22-2006, 04:33 PM

well from my knowledge because the bios is the brains of the motherboard. it is possible that it could.

more than likely the latest rev's of boards had this feature added or all rev's had it built in. and they needed to work ont he bios end of it.

but the bios could tell the mem controller to do this and that and tell the ide controller do this and that. and funnel the data all at once. thus streamlining it into the already exsisting pipe.
the mem controller and nb and sb bus has always been capable of much much more than the current hardware has been able to give it.

so with newer hard drives .. you get the idea.

it also could be something that is designed to mazimise the PCI-Express bus also. since it too is also capable of much more data thruput than is being used.

who knows.. we will havet o wait and see.

Chuck232

06-22-2006, 04:34 PM

Multiplexing in this case would probably mean combining the data from more than one core into a single data stream. I'd presume this would be for more single-threaded applications which don't benefit as much from multicores.

I'm pretty sure demultiplexing would actually take that one stream and split it up into its original components.

BrownTown

06-22-2006, 04:54 PM

yeah, I can make random speculation as good as the next guy, anyone actually have any info, or just speculation?

Tony

06-22-2006, 05:14 PM

yeah, I can make random speculation as good as the next guy, anyone actually have any info, or just speculation?

http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/research/speculative-threading-1205.htm

Good read

Tony

06-22-2006, 05:16 PM

How about this.

Enable apps to control the CPU's on the fly..IE if the app is running in single thread mode all 2 or 4 cores are used..IE combined.

Then, as the app moved to multi thread the CPU's go back to hyperthread mode and you get the speed benifit both ways.

Could it be possible to do something like this?

Aganerral

06-22-2006, 08:13 PM

I think the theory behind AMD's reverse multithreading, and perhaps this multiplexing thing, is not quite what you describe Lestat. The purpose would be to enable a single threaded app to make use of multiple cores. So in a Kentsfield, it would split into 4 streams to use all of them, then recombine.

This is all speculation, since neither AMD nor Intel have announced anything of the sort :)

STEvil

06-22-2006, 10:45 PM

gee, I think i've been saying this for a year now and people keep telling me its impossible or inefficient lol.

Hassan

06-22-2006, 11:07 PM

gee, I think i've been saying this for a year now and people keep telling me its impossible or inefficient lol.

its impossible and inefficient :nono:

overclocker.at

06-22-2006, 11:19 PM

CMT (Core Multiplexing Technology) only for Intel Core Extreme :confused:

Pomme

06-23-2006, 12:37 AM

That seems like a very innovative and impacting development for the future. That would make life of programmers a lot easier, causing low cost software to benifit from multiple cores.. Right ?

theteamaqua

06-23-2006, 12:51 AM

4 cores -> multiplexed to 2 cores....imagine that.

Kentsfield at 3.6GHz could easily look like a Conroe @ 6GHz+

;)

wow this gon rock, cos i gotta say the benchies from coolaler and hicook didnt seem that impressive at all, if this is true (which seem like the case) im getting kentsfield

also u said 3.6 GHz?? air??

uOpt

06-23-2006, 08:05 AM

At work I talked to some guys who worked on this concept in in the 90ties. Their IRC comments are not enthusiastic.

I didn't find anything specific about AMD's solution, but from the Intel paper this will be very limited. The problem is that you can execute a single thread in parallel only as long as the additional branches do not "commit", aka write to memory. You can only allow one thread to write to memory after you can prove from the other threads that this thread actually had a right to execute to this point.

The whole point about this speculative execution is that you execute code that you do not know yet whether it is actually what the program wants to execute. If it turns out that this thread had no business going there you just disgard the results it computed. But that's the catch, it means you can speculatively execute one thread only as long as it doesn't commit to memory. Every speculative thread that tries to write into memory must be stopped until it can be proven that this speculative thread was actually real.

In addition, there is severe cache synchronization overhead as prove threads commit and modify memory that unproven threads use. These threads will be on different cores in different L1 and L2 caches (most likely the L2 cache is disabled entirely on cores executing speculative threads).

But the code has not been written with caches in mind. If you have good multithreaded code then people are careful to keep the data that the different threads use on different cache lines, to keep the locks a cache line away from the data they protect etc. If you try to execute a program in parallel that was not meant to be parallel it will not have any of that.

freecableguy

06-23-2006, 09:16 AM

Not sure why there is so much resistance to this technology. The work is already done, Core 2 already contains all the technology required to implement this new feature.

1) L2 cache is shared and does not require bus access to read/write.
2) Single FSB shared by both cores.
3) Cores can be dynamically enabled/disabled.
4) L2 cache can be dynamically assigned.
5) Individual execution units can be dynamically powered-up and down.

mascaras

06-23-2006, 12:00 PM

CMT (Core Multiplexing Technology) only for Intel Core Extreme :confused:

where did you saw that???

regards

nn_step

06-23-2006, 12:42 PM

lawrywild

06-23-2006, 12:43 PM

IMO

bad for 24/7

awesome for superpi :D

uOpt

06-23-2006, 12:55 PM

well I agree with the statement that Intel's version seems very limited in nature...

I haven't seen a paper on what exactly AMD is doing but I bet 45 cookies that it is the same thing.

I wouldn't see it that much as a limitation.

Instead my view is that clearly the chip makers want to have multi-core and want applications to be multi-threaded.

However, they realize some people are stuff with either single-threaded applications or with applications that scale only to two cores when later there will be 4 or 8 around.

So they try to do what they can for the users of single-core applications to make use of the silicon at hand, even if it is not much.

You can mostly rule out that AMD does anything more or less fancy than Intel explains in this paper. This is all academic research from 10 years ago, chipmakers don't just pull this stuff out of their hats.

lawrywild

06-23-2006, 12:59 PM

mm cookies.. can I have one?

derektm

06-23-2006, 01:21 PM

mm cookies.. can I have one?

Theres none left....

http://i5.tinypic.com/15f5a28.jpg

bigjohns97

06-23-2006, 01:43 PM

I don't understand how people could not want this technology when almost all desktop software is single threaded.

Hopefully it will have some nice results, but i through we were already doing this on a software level (OS - cpu wait states) maybe doing it on hardware level will provide better performance.

Donbp

06-23-2006, 01:57 PM

Not sure all the logic that would be needed to handle this could possibly fit in a bios update which is already full. The rumors say AMD requires a new cpu driver and an update to windows for their solution. That I can see, but a bios update? I doubt it. Everything sounds fine until you take into account running single core apps and apps that can actually use more then 1 at the same time. How does it switch from single to dual (or quad)? How often? What is the overhead of all that switching? When does it make a decision to stay in one mode or the other? Seems to be a lot of logic involved.

freecableguy

06-23-2006, 02:16 PM

BIOS doesn't have any code in it other than the setting bootstap options, initializing the CPU(s) and setting switches on or off (including setting timings, variables, conditions, etc.). To think that theres "code" in the BIOS to handle this is ignorant of how things work. A BIOS update does little other than tell the CPU to enable to technology....that's why all it takes it a BIOS flash and Windows code and/or CPU driver update.

Donbp

06-23-2006, 02:30 PM

That's exactly my point. How can they put the needed logic into the bios. And logic is needed. Unless their solution is all single core or all multi-core. If it is then it's worthless.

accord99

06-23-2006, 02:32 PM

That's exactly my point. How can they put the needed logic into the bios. And logic is needed. Unless their solution is all single core or all multi-core. If it is then it's worthless.
They're not, the BIOS is just a toggle option to tell the CPU to enable or disable the feature.

Charles Wirth

06-23-2006, 02:41 PM

Donbp, instead of shoving the knife in and twisting. How about actually waiting for results first?

You come off sounding like a rabid fanboy.

PetNorth

06-23-2006, 02:46 PM

What matters.

@ FCG or Tony:

Have you enabled this feature in Bios rev 1181?
Have you run some single thread app?
and if response to these questions is "yes", then, Is there a perfomance improvement?

nn_step

06-23-2006, 02:47 PM

Donbp, instead of shoving the knife in and twisting. How about actually waiting for results first?

You come off sounding like a rabid fanboy.
Good point, although I do hope that it isn't like HT, in the way that it works better for Single threaded apps but multithreaded apps suffer..

_Eduard_

06-23-2006, 03:03 PM

So do they actually use both cores together or do they disable one, and then overclock and use the cache ment for both cores on the other one?

Anyway if this is true and it works, imagine a 3.5ghz kenthsfield 4-in-1 in superpi :slobber: 14 conroe-gigahertz effective :slobber: :slobber: :slobber:

Donbp

06-23-2006, 03:04 PM

lol..Hey, I didn't start this thread that says it will be enabled with just a bios update. Yell at who did.

Bloody_Sorcerer

06-23-2006, 03:19 PM

donbp, you're the one not realizing that the tech is already there, on the cpu, and all the bios is doing is flipping an on switch.

Donbp

06-23-2006, 03:32 PM

donbp, you're the one not realizing that the tech is already there, on the cpu, and all the bios is doing is flipping an on switch.

Yeah, maybe I misunderstood what people were saying. It sounded like they were saying that was what it is. As everything today has just been rumors and smoke I was getting a laugh out of it.

Flanker

06-23-2006, 03:47 PM

As everything today has just been rumors and smoke I was getting a laugh out of it.

^ Lame defense after insulting everyone whos posted in this thread.

sealion

06-23-2006, 04:14 PM

I'm starting to love these technology secrets. You're already excited bout getting a conroe/kenthsfield then they tell you with a bios upgrade you get an TWO conroes/kenthsfields. Oh the joy.

The Coolest

06-23-2006, 04:18 PM

I'm starting to love these technology secrets. You're already excited bout getting a conroe/kenthsfield then they tell you with a bios upgrade you get an TWO conroes/kenthsfields. Oh the joy.
No. With a BIOS update you can simulate a much more powerful single core chip with a Conroe and a crazy-fast dual core with a Kentsfield.

Flanker

06-23-2006, 04:33 PM

Lol, what he said. But yea, its awesome when something like this happens. Our performance just increased 66% in 90% of our apps without us having to do much about it, lol.

grimREEFER

06-23-2006, 04:35 PM

i dont like this concept, u get the best performance with kentsfield when there are 4 threads at once lol, how hard is it to do that !!!

Tony

06-23-2006, 05:10 PM

Guys don't forget AMD has a secret too, I have a feeling we may see PR's from both companies around 27th July or so...well im hoping they do..:)

I have no insider Info here, I have talked to neither Intel or AMD about this, i just read what gets posted and put 2+2 together, like Fugger says lets wait and see.

Regarding have a switched the option on...nope but FCG has,issue is we need the divice driver for XP to get it going and maybe a further bios update to straighten out some niggles etc...who know???

I know this much, it looks like both companies are pushing to better each other with secret tweaks they added into their latest CPU's, it can only make our experience of these platforms more enjoyable in the long run :)

nn_step

06-23-2006, 05:20 PM

grimREEFER

06-23-2006, 07:59 PM

ok, if ppl are still buyin am2, idk what intel can do to stop them lol
they seem to have bested them in every concievable way, including having AMD's rumored tech lol

taemun

06-23-2006, 08:05 PM

they seem to have bested them in every concievable way, including having AMD's rumored tech lol

Yeah
Conroe -> more OC'able
Conroe -> 8 IPC, AM2 6 IPC (with reverse HT)
Conroe -> win ;)

Still ... these RHT techs have gotta be lossy (in my unknowledgable opinion).... lets see some bencies ;)

BrownTown

06-23-2006, 08:32 PM

first you might want to see something other than a rumor...

Also, please everyone stop talking like a quad core @ 3G will be equivilent to a single core at 12G, life don't work that way, you'll be lucky to get theequivilent of a 4G single core even IF this technology exists (obviously there will be some instances where it is higher, but on average). Also, it would likely work like the origional HT where some programs actually run slower if all the specualtions end up to be wrong. Or, backround threads might get in the way and gum up the works.

Flanker

06-23-2006, 09:56 PM

Ok, if ppl are still buying AM2, idk what intel can do to stop them lol.
They seem to have bested them in every concievable way, including having AMD's rumored tech lol.

Lol, best post summarizing Intel's current ownage I've seen in a while.

fhpchris

06-24-2006, 12:09 AM

I love AMD, it is too bad that they have no chance now :(

Intel is going to have the performance crown for a while if this comes true.

erwinz

06-24-2006, 03:22 AM

Let's wait and see.. both intel and AMD have a secret.. :D hehehe the waiting is killing me.. :p

metro.cl

06-24-2006, 03:40 AM

so current am2 cpus will work with anti ht?

andL64

06-24-2006, 04:07 AM

so current am2 cpus will work with anti ht?

yes, like intel

and a bios update and new processor driver will unlock the feature

metro.cl

06-24-2006, 05:33 AM

yes, like intel

and a bios update and new processor driver will unlock the feature

in this thead the say only conroe XE migh support this

thanks for the answer, i wont sell my am2 yet then :)

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-24-2006, 05:42 AM

Well I have a BIOS option on my Bad Axe for core multiplexing with an E6400, CPU is an ES tho.

Cooper

06-24-2006, 05:44 AM

Well I have a BIOS option on my Bad Axe for core multiplexing with an E6400, CPU is an ES tho.

Screen ?

Blacklash

06-24-2006, 05:46 AM

/Does happy dance

Can't wait for my Conroe!

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-24-2006, 05:49 AM

Cooper, rigs in bits atm for GFX card upgrade watercooling cleaning and a general tidy up! Will get it running on air later tho for a screenie.

**EDIT** Screenie as requested, appologies for poor pic quality, was taken from my camera phone.

Cooper

06-24-2006, 06:25 AM

It`s good enough to read, thanks :)
But I guess this doesn`t do anything atm, right ?
Hmm...and what`s that SW Single Processor Mode is about ? Anyone have a clue ?

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-24-2006, 06:26 AM

According to FCGs post further up SW single processor mode disables 1 core totally.

cpuz

06-24-2006, 06:40 AM

It`s good enough to read, thanks :)
But I guess this doesn`t do anything atm, right ?
Hmm...and what`s that SW Single Processor Mode is about ? Anyone have a clue ?

It disables one execution core, afaik.

I'm wondering how CMT manages several threads. I mean : when one logical CPU takes in charge several threads, the context switch overhead is not negligible. And HT for example allowed to handle two contextes for this reason. Still very fuzzy, anyway :)

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-24-2006, 06:52 AM

Ok, just tried a few things. Core multiplexing, when set to disabled, causes my PC to not boot. SW single CPU does indeed cause the PC to boot and use only 1 core. SW single core gave a slightly faster Pi time tho that may be an anomaly.

Cooper

06-24-2006, 07:54 AM

Don`t think it`s a anomaly. L2 is shared, so you have all 2MB just for one core -> better result.
I wonder what core is disabled: 0 or 1 ? And is there a chance to control which to disable. By manufacturing one core might clock higher than another - would be great to have a tweak allowing to choose which core to disable (of course is there`re switches in both cores).

freecableguy

06-24-2006, 08:41 AM

Cooper, see post #2 in this thread. I show pics....just disables core 1 and gives all 4MB/2MB cache to the functional core.

Cooper

06-24-2006, 09:13 AM

Cooper, see post #2 in this thread. I show pics....just disables core 1 and gives all 4MB/2MB cache to the functional core.

Yeap. That was just what I`ve write, didn`t I ?
FCG perhaps any info on which core is disabled ?
I still haven`t seen any proof that one of the cores might be weaker, but don`t think it`s not a fact.

freecableguy

06-24-2006, 09:44 AM

Always disables Core 1 (the secondary core).

nn_step

06-24-2006, 11:33 AM

i||uSi0n^

06-24-2006, 11:42 AM

its quite normal coz it needs an updated cpu drivers for the windows for it to work...

i||uSi0n^

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-24-2006, 11:56 AM

nn_step, that wasnt multiplexing that was 1 core disabled and all the 2mb cache used by the 1 active core.

ted3

06-24-2006, 01:55 PM

its quite normal coz it needs an updated cpu drivers for the windows for it to work...
I hope that driver is doing as little as possible other than enabling the feature, software emulation will always be inferior to real HW support, kind of like HT compared to preemptive multitasking. If this thing is anything like a Dual to Single SW Gateway its probably gonna suck.

lawrywild

06-24-2006, 02:10 PM

Core multiplexing, when set to disabled, causes my PC to not boot.

Do you mean when Enabled :confused:

grimREEFER

06-24-2006, 02:32 PM

amd's solution uses hypertransport while intel's solution uses shared L2 cache?
if this is true, isnt intel's solution going to be considerably better?

caater

06-24-2006, 03:12 PM

amd's solution uses hypertransport while intel's solution uses shared L2 cache?
if this is true, isnt intel's solution going to be considerably better?
core family also have l1 to l1 direct link..

nn_step

06-24-2006, 03:15 PM

amd's solution uses hypertransport while intel's solution uses shared L2 cache?
if this is true, isnt intel's solution going to be considerably better?
True, a shared L2 cache is superior to two processors connected Via Hypertransport link BUT such a design needs to be completely redesigned to add more processors. IN contrast all AMD needs to do is link and link. So for quick efficient upgrades AMD's is better BUT as a design for Performance ONLY a Shared L2 is about as good as it gets.

Flanker

06-24-2006, 03:31 PM

Do you mean when Enabled :confused:

Yea, was thinking the same thing, lol.

amd's solution uses hypertransport while intel's solution uses shared L2 cache?
if this is true, isnt intel's solution going to be considerably better?

Do you have something I can read to better understand how they work? Just trying to figure out how exactly they plan to accomplish this.

Fuji

06-24-2006, 03:35 PM

I'm kind of lost here. The first image posted by "FCG" shows that there are two ways that multiplexing can be done.

The first way would be to dissable a core and run it that way, and another would be to give both cores the same thread.

Now, FCG then said that multiplexing technology always dissables one core. That begs the question "so what's the benefit of multiplexing?" If it dissables one core and gives the other core all 4 MB of L2 cache, core multiplexing wouldn't be anything to write home about (southern lingo lol). If that's all it does, why are people so excited about it?

I mean if it truly did use both cores to execute one thread, then yeah that's pretty groundbreaking, but if it's just a turning off of one core then i don't see the point...

Aganerral

06-24-2006, 03:48 PM

informal

06-24-2006, 05:57 PM

I think it's not the RHT or whatever you call it in "AMD's case"(since we are not sure what it is in AMD's case yet).
I got an email from a friend with this possible explanation:

It's probably a technique that makes possible the situation in which 2 cores are seen by a FSB as a single CPU core and thus utilazing the whole 1066 MHz bus much more effectivly.So its closely related to FSB and not to threading...

BrownTown

06-24-2006, 09:11 PM

hey FCG, if your gonna make diagrams in MS Paint can you at least write that they are drawn for demonstration purposed only, there are some misguided folks going around to other forums acting like those images are from Intel documentation and it would be nice if you could kinda post that this is currently unconfirmed information etc...

Yeah, I know its not your fault what these people do, but alot of people respect what you say, so it might be best if you put a disclaimer there or something.

Johnny Sack

06-24-2006, 09:23 PM

He signed them ©FCG 2006

BrownTown

06-24-2006, 10:06 PM

wow, and yet still people are posting it like its official, oh well, guess they can just live in lala land if thats what they want.

MAS

06-24-2006, 11:04 PM

finally, nobody made core multiplexing work though many have core 2

JumpingJack

06-24-2006, 11:37 PM

Yea, was thinking the same thing, lol.

Do you have something I can read to better understand how they work? Just trying to figure out how exactly they plan to accomplish this.

http://liberty.princeton.edu/Publications/dascmp05_scalability.pdf

http://www.cslab.ece.ntua.gr/courses/mpopt/papers/files/A_minimal_dual-core_speculative_multi-threading_architecture.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~rblee/ELE572Papers/DynamicMultithreadingProc_akkary.pdf <-- simulation article concerning multithreading a singular thread, co-authored by Intel, note the buzz words Memory Disambiguation.

Someone also aluded to earlier that "wouldn't Intel's implementation work better since it is shared L2 cache", the answer is yes.

theteamaqua

06-25-2006, 12:48 AM

q:

will this be availible for non intel mobo, but with intel chipset?? like DFI infinity 975?? cos i want to get DFI 975 infinity for OC, but if badaxe is the only one has it .... OC can be pain in badaxe lol

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-25-2006, 01:59 AM

Core multiplexing is enabled by default and says that 'when set to disabled disables secondary cores'.

Turtle 1

06-25-2006, 04:45 AM

Like any newly introduced Tech the first implementasion won't be all that. But lets look ahead to nehalem . As I understand it Nehalem will have a IMC not unlike the ATI R520 . Now when you look at the R520 were the memory writes to 4 channels and the right software compilers is written . This can easily speed up single threads to 3x speed in a quad core pc. and speed up a dual thread to 2x speed . But the right kind of memory controller has to be in place . ATI has just such a contoller and intel and ati seem to be sharing tech. So Conroe's use of CMP will be a first stepps taken to Nehalem Mitosis settup with all the correct parts inplace.

Turtle 1

06-25-2006, 05:05 AM

wow, and yet still people are posting it like its official, oh well, guess they can just live in lala land if thats what they want.

Brown Cow it would seem that CMP for Conroe is less specutive for Intel than AMD RH/T . I seen a lot of AMDers picking up the RH/T banner when they thought that AMD had something to fight Conroe with . Dreams get crushed everyday. You should have paid att. To what Intel was saying openly.

It was the Inquirer who opened up this can of worms along with X-Bit labs.

I am surprized at people. The sleeping giant has awoken and for some strange reason some thought it took another snooze. :nono:

Tony

06-25-2006, 06:40 AM

Brown Cow it would seem that CMP for Conroe is less specutive for Intel than AMD RH/T . I seen a lot of AMDers picking up the RH/T banner when they thought that AMD had something to fight Conroe with . Dreams get crushed everyday. You should have paid att. To what Intel was saying openly.

It was the Inquirer who opened up this can of worms along with X-Bit labs.

I am surprized at people. The sleeping giant has awoken and for some strange reason some thought it took another snooze. :nono:

The Inquirer picked up on private conversations techs were having from 2 weeks previous, many heard AMD had plans for something like this a couple of months ago but NDA's etc kept everyone quiet and the lack of actual info was scarce. I know i have heard zero info officially but google is your friend when you want to find more...i have been pushing the search engine for 4 weeks now and its supprising what you can find when you pinpoint places to look.

Bios files are beginning to show something is about to happen, all we need do now is look for a patch from m$ and we will know the day has arrived.

AMD from news on the web is looking for the gaming crown back from Conroe, i have a feeling we will be seeing some real fast dual cpu setups real soon along with RHT etc etc...the only issue is our wallets won't be deep enough ..LOL

Flanker

06-25-2006, 03:15 PM

http://liberty.princeton.edu/Publications/dascmp05_scalability.pdf

http://www.cslab.ece.ntua.gr/courses/mpopt/papers/files/A_minimal_dual-core_speculative_multi-threading_architecture.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~rblee/ELE572Papers/DynamicMultithreadingProc_akkary.pdf <-- simulation article concerning multithreading a singular thread, co-authored by Intel, note the buzz words Memory Disambiguation.

Someone also aluded to earlier that "wouldn't Intel's implementation work better since it is shared L2 cache", the answer is yes.

Much thanks. But thats over my head, heh. Could you offer a basic explanation of how it works? As far as I know, it works by sending every second instruction to the second core, but I'm told that that is not possible.

Core multiplexing is enabled by default and says that 'when set to disabled disables secondary cores'.

Uh oh. Well, it may be enabled, but it needs that patch from MS to make it work. The second part worries me though - It disables the second core. So...we have no choice but to keep it enabled or suffer with a single core?

I am surprized at people. The sleeping giant has awoken and for some strange reason some thought it took another snooze. :nono:

Lol. A bit of a fanboyish comment, but witty and well-placed. I liked it.

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-25-2006, 03:19 PM

Uh oh. Well, it may be enabled, but it needs that patch from MS to make it work. The second part worries me though - It disables the second core. So...we have no choice but to keep it enabled or suffer with a single core?

I'm not sure, I also have a SW single Core mode which disables 1 core, they must do something different?!

theteamaqua

06-25-2006, 03:21 PM

i dont understand this at all lol, so to simplified this:
it makes dual core runs single thread application faster right??
and it also turns kentsfield into a conroe with pretty much double the clock speed??

but is this on the CPU side or the mobo side?? and when can i expect to see M$, Intel, mobo maker all to patch this up??

Flanker

06-25-2006, 03:40 PM

@ theteamaqua - Yes, it will let single threaded applications be run on both cores. But no, it won't work at double the clock speed. A 66% increase is more what we should expect.

Its on the CPU side.

informal

06-25-2006, 03:47 PM

People it is NOT in Core2 Duo...
The tech. called Core Mult. Tech. is closely related to FSB and not SW/HW threading implementation.

DilTech

06-25-2006, 05:22 PM

True, a shared L2 cache is superior to two processors connected Via Hypertransport link BUT such a design needs to be completely redesigned to add more processors. IN contrast all AMD needs to do is link and link. So for quick efficient upgrades AMD's is better BUT as a design for Performance ONLY a Shared L2 is about as good as it gets.

Ummm....

Doesn't AMD use it's cross-bar for the 2 cores to communicate?

Silver Bullet

06-25-2006, 07:33 PM

Interesting article .. taking about "Reverse hyerthreading" (Core Multiplexing) ... pretty much comes down to its going to work great, ok, or only good on some programs. (Link: Overclockers.com (http://www.overclockers.com/tips00983/))

Fuji

06-25-2006, 08:08 PM

People it is NOT in Core2 Duo...
The tech. called Core Mult. Tech. is closely related to FSB and not SW/HW threading implementation.
It's been said that Intel's FSB isn't necessarly bottlenecked with Conroe, but will be bottlenecked with kentsfield so logically speaking, they are not going to make a technology that fills the FSB even more...

brandinb

06-25-2006, 08:58 PM

to me the core multiplexing sounds like a on off switch for the shared cache scheme which would explain why the system crashes with it dissabled.

im probably wrong but its my first guess lol i love what some of you here are coming up with 6ghz conroe performance....... hahaha

JumpingJack

06-26-2006, 01:45 AM

Much thanks. But thats over my head, heh. Could you offer a basic explanation of how it works? Lol. .

Sure, no problem --- and whoever told you that every other instruction sent is impossible is telling you correctly, it is impossible as memory load/stores and branching would conflict very quickly.

Reverse Hyperthreading (RHT) was first circulated around the net in early April. It derived from a french web site written by a fella who had a chance encounter with an AMD engineer at a bar True: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04/17/amd_reverse_hyperthreading/

The concept is this... in computers today with single core the majority of code base was designed and written to run in serial mode, one instruction follows the next (single threaded). As multi-core processing popularizes, these single thread designs still run fine, except they utilize only one core of multicore set, wasted resources. There are two approaches to splitting up the thread and allowing to use more than one processor. One is in programming, the programmer can split off various tasks that need to happen but are independent of the task being performed or the compiler analyzes the code base and organizes the machine level code to thread through multiple cores. This is the software/compiled solution.

The second is to have the system do the "splitting" via HW. In this case, as the concept goes, the singular thread is chopped into segments and the segments are split between the two cores. Or, another way to look at it, the two core CPU looks like a single core CPU. This is the concept of RHT or CMT.

Here is how it essentially works. The incoming instruction/data stream is segmented into chunks, for simplicity lets say segment A and segment B, such that segment A precedes segment B in logical order. Segment A goes to Core 0 and segment B is executed speculatively on Core 1. Speculatively in that it is a what if scenario. There are two outcomes to this situation

One scenario: After segment A and B finish, the results are compared -- if segment B read/wrote/or branched in such a way that is in conflict with the results frome executing segment A then the conclusion is that the B segment is errant and the result is simply ignored. This is OK because now segment B will execute in logical order on core 0 and nothing has been lost (albiet nothing gained either).

Second scenario: After segment A and B finish and the results are compared, and it is determined that no conflicts arose in memory reads/writes/branches between the two segments, in such a case the result from A is valid and the result from B is valid. As such, keep both results and simply merge them into the architecuteral state. In this scenario, we have gotten the speed up benefit of concurrently executing two segments of code in time that would other wise need to wait for A to finish before B began. In this case both segments retire concurrently.

In otherwords, segment B was executed speculatively sorta like asking a questions "let's run this ahead of time, and if it doesn't muck things up then I have done it right and killed two birds with one stone". So RHT or CMT are not perfect multi-threading solutions, but the worst case scenario is that some gains in performance will be realized.

Now, when you sit down to think about it RHT or CMT has practical limitations. For example, lets say CPU1 is operating on Thread A and CPU2 is operating on thread B. But thread A changes a memory location that Thread B needs --- when does thread B get the data before or after the change. Neither CPU knows unless they are communicating. Same thing with branch prediction, if thread A predicts a different branch than what is executing on thread B, then the work on thread B is wrong and needs to be discarded.

Another way to envision this concept is think of the inclusion of the OOOe (out of order execution engine). Basically the CPU buffer takes a set of insturctions and re-orders them in sequence to execute most efficiently through the core execution units. This is instrution level parallism (ILP). In essense, the unit examined is individual instructions. In thread level parallelism (TLP), the unit examined to be reorder is > 2 instructions within in the thread. You can think of RHT or CMT as grouped instructions being re-worked for exectuion similar to how a OOOe engine might reorder at the instruction level.

At first many people thought rubbish, then more details and actual technical papers on the subject have been found. It appears to be a reality, if so we can expect some performance improvements without having to buy new software. One would expect very serial, non-branchy code to get the biggest boost which means Games will not see huge improvements as these tend to be very "branch" code bases.

Ailleur

06-26-2006, 05:00 AM

At first many people thought rubbish, then more details and actual technical papers on the subject have been found. It appears to be a reality, if so we can expect some performance improvements without having to buy new software. One would expect very serial, non-branchy code to get the biggest boost which means Games will not see huge improvements as these tend to be very "branch" code bases.

I dont think anyone ever doubted (not that ive seen anyway) that code could be paralelized by hardware. What was doubted (and rightly so) is that one instruction could be split to execute on 2 cores.

JumpingJack

06-26-2006, 09:50 PM

I dont think anyone ever doubted (not that ive seen anyway) that code could be paralelized by hardware. What was doubted (and rightly so) is that one instruction could be split to execute on 2 cores.

David Kanter of RWT didn't believe so:

http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&id=69290&threadid=69280&roomid=11

Some bought it out of the shoot, others (like myself) were simply not convinced choosing to be more skeptical. It took me a few hours over two weekends to dig up enough literature and educate myself on the principle.

Actually, some of the enthusiast HW sites are exclaiming that AMD with RHT will meld 2 cores to mimic 1 virtual core, the Inq. claims it will take two 3 IPC (issue) cores and make one 6 IPC (issue ) core. This is not quite true, in fact the peformance speed up is governed by Amdahl's Law for the most part and how effectively the thread can segment and execute correctly. A 2x gain is quite not possible in a normal single threaded application. David Kanter does a good job above rationalizing the two different architectural states of each core.

p360stick

06-26-2006, 10:14 PM

if this is true the cpu will be fast as hell

Haltech

06-26-2006, 10:46 PM

So would this actually require a driver to be installed into the actual OS as well as a BIOS option?

nn_step

06-27-2006, 02:42 AM

So would this actually require a driver to be installed into the actual OS as well as a BIOS option?
Preferably just a Bios update. kind of how early dual core AMD samples needed a bios update for the computer to detect the second core...

MAS

06-27-2006, 04:26 AM

802.11g
802.11g is a proposed standard, describing a wireless networking method for a WLAN that operates in the 2.4 GHz radio band (ISM--Industrial Scientific Medical frequency band). By using OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) technology, 802.11g-based WLANs will be able to achieve a maximum speed of 54 Mbps. 802.11g-compliant equipment, such as wireless Access Points, will be able to provide simultaneous WLAN connectivity for both 802.11g and 802.11b equipment.

further -

OFDM is nothing new — its core multiplexing principles have been applied to everything from satellite broadcast to ADSL. Over the last decade, the technology has played a critical role in wireless, forming the basis of the IEEE 802.11a standard and, most recently, the critical multiplexing scheme for the WiMAX Forum's next generation of wireless broadband specifications.

http://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?t=129552&start=4780&sid=e1323d38ac2867c537dcecf98e79ad8c

if bad axe has 802.11 integrated, bios item core multiplexing can just control 802.11 -:))))))))))))

MAS

06-27-2006, 04:57 AM

though phrase "core multiplexing principles" can be explained also as "fundamental multiplexing principles" - if so, I am sorry

TarTheDark

06-27-2006, 07:28 AM

This thread made it to TweakTown ;)

http://www.tweaktown.com/index.html#news_5891

vapb400

06-27-2006, 07:31 AM

lol it looks like core multiplexing was removed from the most most recent bios.

Burdman

06-27-2006, 07:43 AM

MAS

06-27-2006, 11:34 AM

do you still beleive in intel virtual core?
unknown bios menu item is not a proof of its existance
one more myth

gone_fishin

06-27-2006, 11:48 AM

I don't have a Badaxe so I don't know, but didn't it just say they moved it from the main page... so the option could be on a different one? (I have no clue, just stabbing around in the dark so to say).

They hid the BIOS option. It is still there but hidden. Open the Bios with ITK to see.

MAS

06-27-2006, 12:22 PM

somebody, send me this bios image
i will disassemble it and look at it's internals
just interesting

Scyphe

06-27-2006, 08:30 PM

Wow, rumourmill is churning out a lot of pointless stuff from the gutter.. Homemade pictures and people believe in it.. Yes, "added for effect" sure made the wanted effect.

This is what Intel spokesman said when asked about it:

“We will support the disabling of one core in BIOS in a future BIOS rev.,” said Daniel Snyder, a spokesman for Intel Corp., when asked about the background of the technology. This means that once one core is disabled, the whole 2MB or 4MB cache reservoir on microprocessors that have shared level-two (L2) cache will be usable by one processing engine, which should boost performance in applications that cannot take advantage of two executing cores.

It is highly-likely that the feature will only work on the upcoming Core 2 processors code-named Conroe, which have shared L2 cache between its cores. It is also likely that the capability will allow quad-core chips to act like two dual-core processors in situations when four processing engines cannot be used efficiently.

Cooper

06-27-2006, 08:36 PM

Scyphe

06-27-2006, 09:08 PM

Yes.. and it's probably what all this misdirected hullaballo is all about. But what do I know (or anyone else for that matter).

Mr. Tinker

06-28-2006, 05:06 AM

yes we do ;)

EDIT: pictures added for effect. :)

Conroe: 2 -> 1 core possible

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=48580&stc=1&d=1151105210

Kentsfield: 4 -> 2 cores possible

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=48581&d=1151105299

-FCG
Congratulations, these diagrams are on all the enthusiast sites.

MAS

06-28-2006, 05:20 AM

these diagrams are on all the enthusiast sites

but it doesn't work and scarcely will work

i||uSi0n^

06-28-2006, 06:12 AM

did you guys even read what Intel said? They said core multiplex disables one core so app can take full advantage of the shared cache...

where did u read that ? link please ?

i||uSi0n^

Thorburn

06-28-2006, 06:19 AM

did you guys even read what Intel said? They said core multiplex disables one core so app can take full advantage of the shared cache...

Thats not Core Multiplexing, thats the SW Single Core option in the BIOS.

PetNorth

06-28-2006, 06:30 AM

No, as far as I know with SW Single Core "enabled" in BIOS, one core is always disabled.

CMT lets to use the whole cache to one core when single thread app is running, but both cores are "active".

They are different things.

[XC]Atomicpineapple

06-28-2006, 06:59 AM

Quote me

SW single CPU does indeed cause the PC to boot and use only 1 core. SW single core gave a slightly faster Pi time tho that may be an anomaly.

Quote Cooper in next post down

Don`t think it`s a anomaly. L2 is shared, so you have all 2MB just for one core -> better result.

Given that explaination it looks like SW core disable does shove all the cache over to 1 core, and multiplexing is somethign else, probably as FCG described

PetNorth

06-28-2006, 07:40 AM

I don't think it's the same explanation. With SW single core enabled in BIOS, one core is *ever disabled*, so you have only one core, and yes, because shared cache, the only core enabled uses all cache.

With CMT both cores are *ever enabled* but when a single thread app is running, CMT lets that the core where it runs uses the whole cache too.

I extract this possible explanation of what CMT is, from here http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060627095448.html

yoti

06-28-2006, 10:11 AM

Maybe here we have answer?
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2507&p=7

theteamaqua

06-28-2006, 10:26 AM

so how is single core different from this core multiplex technology?? they are different right?? CMT turn multi thread into 1 core or 2 core (kentsfield) right??

Thorburn

06-28-2006, 10:39 AM

so how is single core different from this core multiplex technology?? they are different right?? CMT turn multi thread into 1 core or 2 core (kentsfield) right??

If its the same as what is shown in the Anandtech article then Core Multiplexing would allow an idle core to do speculative threading work instead of sitting doing nothing. If you have multi-threaded code then it goes to work on the other thread instead automatically.
Single core mode turns off the second core completely, no operations carried out whether you have multi-threaded code or not.

PetNorth

06-28-2006, 10:47 AM

Maybe here we have answer?
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2507&p=7

No, Mitosis, at this moment, is only a paper project, far to be implemented...

Donnie27

06-29-2006, 11:48 AM

No, Mitosis, at this moment, is only a paper project, far to be implemented...

HAHAHA! But RH/T is real and proven right?

BrownTown

06-29-2006, 11:52 AM

dunno about him, but they are both BS in my book

i||uSi0n^

06-29-2006, 11:54 AM

its too early to say anything until both AMD and Intel give out some info.

i||uSi0n^

Donnie27

06-29-2006, 12:04 PM

its too early to say anything until both AMD and Intel give out some info.

i||uSi0n^

QFT!

informal

06-29-2006, 12:55 PM

As for Core2 Duo,there is no clustered mulithreading in it.Just simple no.Mitosis is a 5 year project with possible introduction in Nehalem core(which is not so distant time).

And as for AMD's clust. multithreading ...Well ,Rahul Sood just confirmed it on his blogspot(in comments section on his latest blog entry).

So expect to see it introduced on the dawn of Conroe's release.
Performance were not mentioned,but Rahul said that it "Sure helps" in the fight against Core2 Duo.We will see how much ;)

PetNorth

06-29-2006, 01:31 PM

HAHAHA! But RH/T is real and proven right?

I thought this thread was about CMT. Did I miss something?

Tony

06-29-2006, 02:13 PM

I thought this thread was about CMT. Did I miss something?
Its about Intels new tweak yes, but we are bound to have talk of AMD's responce also as in reality they are the same thing.

It makes me wonder if you guys don't want more speed reading this thread, some of you seem unwilling to embrace new tech...

Its just a shame I haven't dug any further info as of yet...

PetNorth

06-29-2006, 02:40 PM

No Tony, the question is that some of us are unwilling to embrace simple rumors, speculations, inventions or whatever, without any near or remote fact.

informal

06-29-2006, 03:23 PM

Its about Intels new tweak yes, but we are bound to have talk of AMD's responce also as in reality they are the same thing.

Amd's responce to what???:confused: To disabling one core/using all the L2 cache?Amd use exclusive caches for their multicore...

For 1000th time,there is no clustered multithreading in Core2 Duo.Amd doesn't have to respond to anything since it is not there.

Donnie27

06-29-2006, 06:42 PM

I thought this thread was about CMT. Did I miss something?

Explain that to the others link on post #133 LOL!

Donnie27

06-29-2006, 06:54 PM

Amd's responce to what???:confused: To disabling one core/using all the L2 cache?Amd use exclusive caches for their multicore...

For 1000th time,there is no clustered multithreading in Core2 Duo.Amd doesn't have to respond to anything since it is not there.

Here, try out this response?

Originally Posted by back in April
Name: Hans de Vries (hansdevries@chip-architect.com) 4/6/06

ten9 (jhdjksa@huhu.com) on 4/6/06 wrote:
---------------------------
>Hello Hans,
>
>Do you think there is a fourth decoder like Gipsel argues
>here:
>
>http://www.aceshardware.com/forums/...60237&forumid=1
>

These are the micro-code ep(roms) for complex cisc
instructions. They operate as one single memory since
they all get the same address from the micro-sequencer
which handles the complex instructions. Going from 3 to
4 therefor doesn't say anything at all, it's just more
memory, or the same amount of memory with larger cells.
The rest of the architecture is visibly 3-way. The re-
order buffer, the integer schedulers, the integer ALU's.

>And what do you think about the floating point units?
>

It's virtualy identical to existing K8's. There are also 3 HT
units and not 4 as claimed by somebody at aces. It's not a K8L.

>Regards,
>
>Ten9
>

It seems to be an earlier prototype in which they were still
experimenting with the new much denser L2 cache. The fact
that they left open such a wide area with the size of the
old cache means they were not sure enough about it at that
time. Showing the cache now would imply that it must be OK.

More cache would be the most important thing for AMD to
counter Conroe's integer IPC.

Regards, Hans

So much for the other BS!

Donnie27

06-29-2006, 06:56 PM

Now it reamins to be seen what and how Core Multiplexing will work but at least let's wait and see!

JumpingJack

06-29-2006, 11:06 PM

No, Mitosis, at this moment, is only a paper project, far to be implemented...

If you are interested in more technical details of Mitosis, here are a few Intel authored paper:

http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/tullsen/pldi2005.pdf published in June or 2005
http://www.ece.lsu.edu/tca/papers/collins-01.pdf another 2001 I believe.
http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~jbrown/papers/sp-cmp.pdf
http://www.iccd-conference.org/proceedings/2004/22310360.pdf

Just a handful, but Intel has been working on this for quite some time evidently, I have found papers (PDF files not electroncially available) dating back to 1996.

taemun

06-29-2006, 11:29 PM

Just a handful, but Intel has been working on this for quite some time evidently, I have found papers (PDF files not electroncially available) dating back to 1996.

:eek: thats quite a long time ago lol

I wonder that Anandtech said 5 years (in 2005)... that would mean at least 14 years of research. Seems very long. Lets hope that CMT [exists and] is an implentation of Mitosis.

Tranzmit

06-30-2006, 12:23 AM

Interesting how for years we try to go multicore and what have you and the moment we get it we all try to get it to act like a single core again.

Obviously an extreme oversimplification but yeah. I really think we're all better off getting devs writing multithread happy code and hoping that the os's and the drivers and the hardware starts communicating together better.

I seem to remember reading ssomething from intel about how they're actually moving toward a somewhat cell like approach with lots of "special purpose" mini cpus that are much better at doing what they do best and having a single general purpose unit that can allocate the workload off to the other more specialized units but without such a penalty as Cell seems to have with it's non optimised code where it just falls over.

Oh happy first post to me. Been lurking for awhile but figured i'd better start somewhere :D

ted3

06-30-2006, 03:32 AM

Interesting how for years we try to go multicore and what have you and the moment we get it we all try to get it to act like a single core again.

Happy 1st post! Singlethread performance is a bit interesting for me right now, next year i probably couldnt care less. But maybe i care again when/if i get a Kentsfield? Lets say a coming game is optimized for dualcore and cant utilize the 4 cylinders of Kentsfield, then this sounds like a great way to make Kentsfield a monster Twin.

PetNorth

06-30-2006, 03:50 AM

Explain that to the others link on post #133 LOL!

You know, I'm only responsible for my posts ;)

Vassili

06-30-2006, 04:52 AM

Happy 1st post! Singlethread performance is a bit interesting for me right now, next year i probably couldnt care less. But maybe i care again when/if i get a Kentsfield? Lets say a coming game is optimized for dualcore and cant utilize the 4 cylinders of Kentsfield, then this sounds like a great way to make Kentsfield a monster Twin.
I am sure they don't make it dualcore optimized but multithreaded...;)

ted3

06-30-2006, 06:40 AM

I am sure they don't make it dualcore optimized but multithreaded...;)
Wish i could be as sure about that as you are... Parts of a games code can be executed in separate threads but it demands a very solid code to hand off everything to threading. Most games could prove to complex to do that, its very likely that the main logic has to execute in one thread, what remains is not enough work to utilize 3 cores (or even one core in some cases), those threads could too often just sit there and wait for the main thread with a Kentsfield.

Anandtech interviewed Tim Sweeney about this once, the future looks bright but you could also get the impression that multicores mainly give the developers the chance to add lots more bells and whistles. Good for realism, lets hope thats not all.. Just got to wait and see, i hope you are correct Vasilli, but i have my doubts for now :)

Donnie27

06-30-2006, 08:30 AM

You know, I'm only responsible for my posts ;)

Yes you are, my bad.

Donnie27

06-30-2006, 08:36 AM

Wish i could be as sure about that as you are... Parts of a games code can be executed in separate threads but it demands a very solid code to hand off everything to threading. Most games could prove to complex to do that, its very likely that the main logic has to execute in one thread, what remains is not enough work to utilize 3 cores (or even one core in some cases), those threads could too often just sit there and wait for the main thread with a Kentsfield.

Anandtech interviewed Tim Sweeney about this once, the future looks bright but you could also get the impression that multicores mainly give the developers the chance to add lots more bells and whistles. Good for realism, lets hope thats not all.. Just got to wait and see, i hope you are correct Vasilli, but i have my doubts for now :)

What if that second core could help the GPU, NIC and Sound cards? Folks are selling P-GPUs now.

Turtle 1

06-30-2006, 11:10 AM

audiofreak

06-30-2006, 04:22 PM

I am sorry for being late for this very interesting discussion.

That seems like a very innovative and impacting development for the future. That would make life of programmers a lot easier, causing low cost software to benifit from multiple cores.. Right ?

Wrong!

That seems like a completely unneeded and uncalled for thing to waste expensive silicon estate on. Like someone would actually blame CPU manufacturers because their latest multi-core CPUs are slow at single-threaded apps?!? Come on people :slapass:, we all know that software is light years behind the current hardware.

This technology instead of helping us to close the gap between hardware and software it will just make it worse. It will slow down software development because there would be no need to optimize for multi-core, to change algorithms, logic, and go parallel. Software prices would stay high because nobody would see the need to invest R & D money in speed improvements in order to gain advantage over the competition when they will be getting improvements for free -- improvements they do not deserve!

In many cases it will simply not work. Think of this, you insert CD and select the drive in Total Commander and it blocks waiting for the drive to become ready.So even if you throw two cores at it via Reverse-HT or CMT it won't unblock. Same goes for Windows Explorer.

So while Total Commander or Windows Explorer or (________ insert your favorite app here) is stalled spinning on one core of your dual-core CPU you still have another core free. With CMT and Rev-HT what will you have? One busy core unresponsive for other tasks. No hardware can sort that programmer's mess out.

God how I hate programmers who wish their lives to be easier!!! Then don't be a programmer! Yes, it is that easy -- just go load some coal instead.

So if you haven't figured it out yet, I am all against wasting time and silicon on those two technologies and I call both AMD and Intel to action -- spank some programmer's asses instead!

Link (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32745)

Mad Pistol

06-30-2006, 07:34 PM

God how I hate programmers who wish their lives to be easier!!! Then don't be a programmer!Link (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32745)

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Making their lives easier with this technology means they can push out code easier and more efficiently and not have to worry about making programs which are multithreaded and optimized for dual core. This way, all programs become dual core ready. It also means that those programs that are written for dual core will run that much faster.

BTW, I'm not a programmer, and I don't write code. This is logic, pure and simple. It's not hard to understand. In this day and age, making a process easier usually helps those who are involved in the given process.

theteamaqua

06-30-2006, 07:39 PM

so wait, if i get conroe and not doing anything to bios. this thing is enabled just like that?? cuz i heard someone said ints on the cpu side ...

BrownTown

06-30-2006, 08:45 PM

just so long as you realise that "this thing" in Conroe has nothing to to with speculative threading and that all the discussion in this thread is in no way related to what is in Conroe...

informal

06-30-2006, 09:28 PM

BrownTown you waste your time repeating that,i said it 10 x at least and no effect what so ever.The important thing is that ppl are spreading FCG's pictures on the net and kids are talking about CMT not knowing wtf are they talking about:rolleyes:

JumpingJack

06-30-2006, 10:01 PM

Isn't this what multiplexing is really About?

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040218net.htm

Intel Unveils Platform Strategy For Ultra-Wideband Wireless Technology ...
... complete specification for a multi-band orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) technology-based ... For more information on IDF and Intel technology, visit http://developer.intel.com

I believe we will see Mitosis with the Nehalem core If AMD has RH/T now as many claim . We may see Mitosis on Penryn

Multiplexing is simply a term applied to many different situations, it is simply consisting or maintaining multiple parts or interleaving multiple parts to share singlular resources. It is applicable in radio technologies where signals will be multiplexed over similar bands or it is a logical application of term to the contcept of spreading a single thread over several cores.

Your assement above is a good one. I would tend to agree.

theteamaqua

06-30-2006, 10:17 PM

so whats with the bios 1181 on boarrd 975xbx?? i mean why did they enable it?? and took it out couple days later on a newer bios.

JumpingJack

07-01-2006, 12:19 AM

so whats with the bios 1181 on boarrd 975xbx?? i mean why did they enable it?? and took it out couple days later on a newer bios.

:) Look at what it has done to the rampant rumors and speculation --- either it is what we think it is, but not ready for prime-time.... or it was imply a goof and means something else altogether.

Tranzmit

07-01-2006, 01:16 AM

I guess we'll have to wait till they "enable" it, which may well be after AMD does

cupra

07-01-2006, 01:57 AM

4 cores -> multiplexed to 2 cores....imagine that.

Kentsfield at 3.6GHz could easily look like a Conroe @ 6GHz+

;)

and that mean - 4 sec in super pi :D

Tranzmit

07-01-2006, 02:01 AM

and that mean - 4 sec in super pi :D

takes the spliff from Cupras and inhales deeply too :p:

mmm thats some good :banana::banana::banana::banana: you smokin there

jinu117

07-01-2006, 02:12 AM

God how I hate programmers who wish their lives to be easier!!! Then don't be a programmer! Yes, it is that easy -- just go load some coal instead.

Wow, I do take offesne to such comment. If you happen to be a programmer, please only use machine language from now on in name of optimization. Your program will run twice faster if not more on many instances. And also, for loop instructions, optimize it per each cpu that it will be used since that will be most time consuming of processor utilization.
:stick:
I hate those people who think programmers programming should be an artist. It could be but in all practical senses, it has become art of production not art itself...
I get the feeling someone is still living under rock.

***warning... following can be very long and extremely boring***
Here is an example of why such technology can benefit.
Typical business setting. Business application that handles multiple things at same time. It can use optimization greatly to maybe improve performance by 60%. Software is used by 100 employees that actively uses it 4 hours a day. Let's say realized improvement is 20%. Realized revenue increase from improvement is 10% (this is very high number for those of you who have worked in IT... 5% is considered incredible).
Avg salary 50k is assumption here. Programmer salary avg let's say 100k (counting in the people who actually can do this multicore optimization... this is considered pretty high end).
Also, this application gets renewed every year in many facet in functionality, etc
Now let's boil down hard numbers: With optimization say we see 60% improvement in software.

Optimization cost for current application at least usually is 200k or so in such type of codes. Benefit from such code optimization first year. about (half a day) 10% of total employee salary of 100is 250k. So total gain first year is 50k.
Subsequent maintenance improvement based on schedule probably will cost 100k more than otherwise thanks to complexity of changing such optimized code. Subsequential gain of such endeavour is 150k each year. Life of such program usually is 5 years until some high lvl changes and wants brand new system that works with "the new goal of company"
so during life span of such program, benefit is 650k. Not a small number.

Now, without optimization but with optimized software let's say we see 40% improvement in software. Realized gain 13%. Revenue improvement 6.67%
Cost is none up front. First year gain in proportion would be 6.7% of total salary. 167k per year. benefit over 5 year span... 667k.

changing the number around a little to larger company of 200. We will have bit better return. 1850k for optimization, 1670k for non optimization...

Now, this didn't taken into account of downtime for entire company, etc for upgrading suite of software that goes with such major endeavour (basically H/W and software upgarde need to be closely matched etc which usually do add time to upgrade). Most of companies of non financial nature does expect 1-2 days delay of no system in such scenario (financial ones tend to do more qa and through line up of what should happen and backup procedure planning which adds huge amount of money on developmental/deployment cost).

So.... for all the trouble, how much gain is there? Really, how much gain? Programmers don't get paid to make art. They get paid to do the job that will benefit company...

I think I went a bit far off.. not saying optimization is futile, it isn't. For new applications, etc... it probably is more than worth it to invest time & money in. But disregarding technology that immediate benefit possible and cost saving to most companies especially small to medium sized ones... is... bit careless to say the least.

VulgarHandle

07-01-2006, 02:47 AM

see now, someone went and p***ed off the programming gods

isn't it just good enough to say this technology would benefit single-threaded applications, and because of that, it is good...?

DARK SIDE

07-01-2006, 06:42 AM

hardware is coming so fast in this days...software could not folow...programers fault?Not. my opinion.........

informal

07-01-2006, 06:49 AM

Ok,this is what intel rep. told to overclcokers.ru when asked about CMT:

CPU Multiplexing Technology Is A basic input-output system Feature That Turns Off One Of The Processor Cores For Integrator Testing Purposes. This May be available in a future BASIC INPUT-OUTPUT SYSTEM revision.

audiofreak

07-01-2006, 07:01 AM

Everyone sorry for a bit of offtopic but I believe this is important.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Making their lives easier with this technology means they can push out code easier and more efficiently

True that they could push out code easier and more efficiently, but that code won't be any better than it is now (which is very bad). Another part of the equation will be reduction in salaries because there will be less work to do. Moreover, if the trend that leads to (over)simplification of programming continues, it will end up with a bunch of monkeys bashing at keyboard for a handfull of peanuts.

and not have to worry about making programs which are multithreaded and optimized for dual core.

Even the most simple programs have at least two threads, one for processing user interaction and another one doing the work in background. Multi-threading properly done for dual-core now will scale up and get boost automagically on quad-core, octa-core, etc. IMO it is better to worry about that now because it is future proof rather than to do nothing with already broken code and expect hardware to fix bad programming practices.

This way, all programs become dual core ready. It also means that those programs that are written for dual core will run that much faster.

And how will those old unoptimized programs cooperate with properly multi-threaded ones?

BTW, I'm not a programmer, and I don't write code. This is logic, pure and simple. It's not hard to understand. In this day and age, making a process easier usually helps those who are involved in the given process.

Unfortunately your logic is broken. In this case, you have hardware vendors trying to accomodate hardware to the poorly written out of date software. It is ok up to a point but IMO this is way too much. Analogy in real life would be as if car makers would try to make cars for blind, instead of doctors giving them the ability to see and use regular cars.

For the record, I am a programmer and I believe that I know what I am talking about.

Wow, I do take offense to such comment. If you happen to be a programmer, please only use machine language from now on in name of optimization. Your program will run twice faster if not more on many instances. And also, for loop instructions, optimize it per each cpu that it will be used since that will be most time consuming of processor utilization.

Wow, I sense a person who has once tried to optimize some code and gave up. Just you continue "producing" (or is it copy/pasting?) 100,000 of lines of code in Visual Basic a day, and don't worry, AMD and Intel will take care of your inefficiency. Give me a break!

I hate those people who think programmers programming should be an artist. It could be but in all practical senses, it has become art of production not art itself...

Well I am one of those who consider programming to be a bit of an art and not a production line so I guess you hate me already. But let me tell you something -- if your work is all about quantity and nothing about quality then you have already lost. You lost yourself and when you are gone there will be nothing worthy left behind you as a proof that you ever existed. Same goes for all of you "code producers". :fact:

I get the feeling someone is still living under rock.

Better that than working in a sweatshop.

***warning... following can be very long and extremely boring***

It was boring and I believe your numbers are off just as your beliefs. I sense that you still don't understand that applications should be written with optimization in mind. Optimization should not be an afterhtought but rather part of a development cycle and when it is, it doesn't add that much to the cost.

For the cases where you already have unoptimized code, it is usually already hard enough to maintain it, so why not rewrite those most time consuming parts to finally gain some advantage from all those gigabytes of memory, MIPS-es and GFLOPS-es that are being wasted?

A friend of mine and I are optimizing medical imaging applications for a U.S. based company. We started from their code which has undergone some attempts of optimization by others. They even bothered to write SSE2 code for inner loop but we thrown that out because it was SCALAR. Since then we rewrote and rearranged parts of it in such a way that we got more thant 20x reduction in processing time from the initial optimized code for which everyone believed there is no way to make it any faster.

As a side effect of such code revamping, calculations got more precise resulting in clearer pictures. For their clients speed and clarity mean business advantage so the cost is heavily outweighted by the gain.

Right now when everyone believed that there is no more room for speedup, we made a version which runs on a GPU and it does so 4x faster than our heavily optimized CPU code. We had to change algorithms, we had to think of new ways of doing same things, to overcome limitations imposed by GPU architecture but we did it.

In my opinion there is no point in wasting silicon to make soon to be gone single-threaded applications run faster. Moreover, there is no point in wasting valuable time waiting for hardware manufacturers to fix things that we can and should fix.

I am sick and tired of having to upgrade every few months to be able to to continue to use new version of a same lousy bloated piece of software with only cosmetic improvements. Take Windows Vista as an example -- an operating system that needs 15GB of space and 2GB of RAM just for itself to run comfortably takes the top place in my book of software inefficiency. Now where is that code reuse everyone was talking about?!?

isn't it just good enough to say this technology would benefit single-threaded applications, and because of that, it is good...?

It may benefit and we have yet to see how much. On the other hand, bugging software vendors to fix their code and not letting them milk the same old cow anymore would do much more good to the end user.

ted3

07-01-2006, 09:14 AM

So programming is an art? Are you an artist Audiofreak? :D
Im just a programmer, like any other job its hard sometimes and fun sometimes, sometimes very inspiring and sometimes just boring, cant see the big artistic aspect of it.

I have made a few multithreaded Win32 services for NT4 and W2K Server, and sometimes one thread would cause other threads getting queued up while it finished some of the harder stages (for example one case where working against a third party service), i would have welcomed higher single thread performance that time instead of one CPU doing all the work while all others are idle and waiting. Similar things happen all the time, lots of threads has to wait for a "main thread" before they can continue execution. Tech like this only opens up new possibilities, i cant see any scenario where it would make things worse, but then again, im just a code producer i guess...

One more thing Audiofreak, since you already mentioned bad programming practices, you are looking down on the skills of other programmers, and THATS what is really bad programming practice :nono:

Stigma

07-01-2006, 09:35 AM

i dont like this concept, u get the best performance with kentsfield when there are 4 threads at once lol, how hard is it to do that !!!

Only very very, extremely insanely hard =)

Except of course for the few areas where paralellization is easy to do. easily predictable, non-chaotic code (which is "only" a lot of work to multithread well), but thats not a very big part of the software peopel normally use, and neither is it generalyl where we really NEED more computing power.

-Stigma

jinu117

07-01-2006, 10:08 AM

Wow, I sense a person who has once tried to optimize some code and gave up. Just you continue "producing" (or is it copy/pasting?) 100,000 of lines of code in Visual Basic a day, and don't worry, AMD and Intel will take care of your inefficiency. Give me a break!

I am sorry to say these... but I probably do have much much more experience than you in many fields of programming through my carrier. I used to program in low level as low as device driver, machine recording for black box in boeing 777, naviational system sub system for few planes, all the way up to highlevel programming of SQL coding, etc, etc. Obviously optimization is daily part of my life now that I am more of DBA/Project manager than any other time. What would be your credentials... it seems like this is the exact opinion I had until I started working about 15 years ago in industry. (oh programming was in my blood for well over 25 years in total... I am one of those crowd that started with some peek and poke, assembly, C/D and saw technology improvement in PC area for entire life so far)

Well I am one of those who consider programming to be a bit of an art and not a production line so I guess you hate me already. But let me tell you something -- if your work is all about quantity and nothing about quality then you have already lost. You lost yourself and when you are gone there will be nothing worthy left behind you as a proof that you ever existed. Same goes for all of you "code producers". :fact:

- Art of production. You just don't get it. Sweat shop and art of production are not same thing.

It was boring and I believe your numbers are off just as your beliefs. I sense that you still don't understand that applications should be written with optimization in mind. Optimization should not be an afterhtought but rather part of a development cycle and when it is, it doesn't add that much to the cost.

Maybe you were happily producing new code each day... but in reality, where money flow of codes are at (financial and normal business processing part of life), such can't just happen. In fact, on any decent sized application, the only part our team usually can touch is just portion of it. Believe me... such imaging technology or lab related programming is miniscule part progamming sector. Just look at how many people understand assembly really, not even machine language vs other type of coding languages? It is quite apparent.
In fact, I think something like your image enhancing can benefit greatly from such endeavour. Let me ask my friend who works at NASA on imaging to see if he got some comments about such :)

It may benefit and we have yet to see how much. On the other hand, bugging software vendors to fix their code and not letting them milk the same old cow anymore would do much more good to the end user.

--> it cost those companies to revamp... they are out to make money... the cost goes straight back to customers... Bit surprised such simple concept can't be understood.

PS) Now... this has become more of discussion of impact of technology and beliefs of what would be advantage and not... which still isn't bad. I do kind of understand where you are coming from. Yes YOU ARE programming GOD who is better than your peers. You are IT. Maybe, get yourself involved in bit different sector of programming... whole new world where negotiation, project management, and specification writing in match with real world workflow adjustment, etc do take center stage than regular programming. Lot of project integrator in the site would agree :) Good day off to you and yes, you might be wonderful but that doesn't give you reason to put me down.

Your_Boss

07-01-2006, 10:15 AM

111111000011111
111110011001111
111100111100111
111110011001111
111111000011111
111111000111111
111100000000111
110001000010011
110001000010011
110001000010011
110001000010011
110001000010011
111111000011111
111110000001111
111110011001111
111110011001111
111110011001111
111110011001111
111000011000011

Programming art? :D

DARK SIDE

07-01-2006, 10:57 AM

I am sick and tired of having to upgrade every few months to be able to to continue to use new version of a same lousy bloated piece of software with only cosmetic improvements. Take Windows Vista as an example -- an operating system that needs 15GB of space and 2GB of RAM just for itself to run comfortably takes the top place in my book of software inefficiency. Now where is that code reuse everyone was talking about?!?
Yo Audio Freak!Still kicking ass all over the internet, i see :D.Good to have you here!:toast:
I think programers make instructions and also they receive instruction from their bosses :D.Somehow it seems that ,maybe,sometimes, some software are made of bad code for purpose.Buy more hardware,buy new hardware.:D

Tranzmit

07-02-2006, 08:12 AM

here's a little blulb from xbit labs conroe preview

"for instance the current discussion of Core Multiplexing Technology that indicates that Intel engineers are ready to offer their solution for dynamic disabling of the second processor core depending on the type of workload the CPU is experiencing"

jbrukardt

07-02-2006, 01:24 PM

Im not sure why you would want to disable the second core, other than power concerns, its not going to increase performance unless the cache can be linked

3NZ0

07-02-2006, 03:29 PM

Im not sure why you would want to disable the second core, other than power concerns, its not going to increase performance unless the cache can be linked

the l2 is shared, so 1 core can have 2/4mb if need be. (depends on the max cache the cpu was made with)

Turtle 1

07-03-2006, 03:35 AM

Wow, I do take offesne to such comment. If you happen to be a programmer, please only use machine language from now on in name of optimization. Your program will run twice faster if not more on many instances. And also, for loop instructions, optimize it per each cpu that it will be used since that will be most time consuming of processor utilization.
:stick:
I hate those people who think programmers programming should be an artist. It could be but in all practical senses, it has become art of production not art itself...
I get the feeling someone is still living under rock.

***warning... following can be very long and extremely boring***
Here is an example of why such technology can benefit.
Typical business setting. Business application that handles multiple things at same time. It can use optimization greatly to maybe improve performance by 60%. Software is used by 100 employees that actively uses it 4 hours a day. Let's say realized improvement is 20%. Realized revenue increase from improvement is 10% (this is very high number for those of you who have worked in IT... 5% is considered incredible).
Avg salary 50k is assumption here. Programmer salary avg let's say 100k (counting in the people who actually can do this multicore optimization... this is considered pretty high end).
Also, this application gets renewed every year in many facet in functionality, etc
Now let's boil down hard numbers: With optimization say we see 60% improvement in software.

Optimization cost for current application at least usually is 200k or so in such type of codes. Benefit from such code optimization first year. about (half a day) 10% of total employee salary of 100is 250k. So total gain first year is 50k.
Subsequent maintenance improvement based on schedule probably will cost 100k more than otherwise thanks to complexity of changing such optimized code. Subsequential gain of such endeavour is 150k each year. Life of such program usually is 5 years until some high lvl changes and wants brand new system that works with "the new goal of company"
so during life span of such program, benefit is 650k. Not a small number.

Now, without optimization but with optimized software let's say we see 40% improvement in software. Realized gain 13%. Revenue improvement 6.67%
Cost is none up front. First year gain in proportion would be 6.7% of total salary. 167k per year. benefit over 5 year span... 667k.

changing the number around a little to larger company of 200. We will have bit better return. 1850k for optimization, 1670k for non optimization...

Now, this didn't taken into account of downtime for entire company, etc for upgrading suite of software that goes with such major endeavour (basically H/W and software upgarde need to be closely matched etc which usually do add time to upgrade). Most of companies of non financial nature does expect 1-2 days delay of no system in such scenario (financial ones tend to do more qa and through line up of what should happen and backup procedure planning which adds huge amount of money on developmental/deployment cost).

So.... for all the trouble, how much gain is there? Really, how much gain? Programmers don't get paid to make art. They get paid to do the job that will benefit company...

I think I went a bit far off.. not saying optimization is futile, it isn't. For new applications, etc... it probably is more than worth it to invest time & money in. But disregarding technology that immediate benefit possible and cost saving to most companies especially small to medium sized ones... is... bit careless to say the least.

Its a pretty gritty world out there. Kids becoming doctors that aren't fit to examine your pets. Kids becoming Lawyers that aren't capable of doing the paper work to lincess those pets. The doctors aren't qualified to diagnose.

Which brings us to programmers that take a month to right 1 line of code.
So basicily our higher education system is certifying people that aren't qualified. Its that simple.

jinu117

07-03-2006, 11:00 AM

Its a pretty gritty world out there. Kids becoming doctors that aren't fit to examine your pets. Kids becoming Lawyers that aren't capable of doing the paper work to lincess those pets. The doctors aren't qualified to diagnose.

Which brings us to programmers that take a month to right 1 line of code.
So basicily our higher education system is certifying people that aren't qualified. Its that simple.

you guys are so cool and know it all that you can explain what I had to explain in 30-40 lines in few line with no relation to topic. Awesome!!!

ted3

07-03-2006, 02:26 PM

Its a pretty gritty world out there
After reading your post severral times i am ready to take your word for it :confused: :confused:

Its that simple.
Another very simple thing is to avoid quoting loooong posts your are not replying to :D

Tony

07-03-2006, 02:31 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32790

AMD makes the first move it seems...i just downloaded and will start testing with FX62

audiofreak

07-09-2006, 11:26 AM

I am sorry to say these...

Wow, now you are the one "speaking from above". :)

As for your experience, I can match you when it comes to general programming, drivers, low level, peek'n'poke, but I must bow down when it comes to Boeing and SQL.

Although, I can say that Boeing engineers were presented with our reconstruction code and they almost passed out when they saw a reconstruction of a dataset which took less than 15 minutes on 3.0 GHz P4 because they used to have to wait 10 hours for that at home.

- Art of production. You just don't get it. Sweat shop and art of production are not same thing.

They serve the same purpose - they feed this rotten consumer society with quantity instead of quality. But I don't expect you to admit that you are bored down to bits doing relational databases just as 14 year old boy in Indonesia is bored by sewing Nike size 10 left shoe for the 47th time today.

The only difference between you and that boy is that he is getting 1$ a day and you get much more, but don't worry. Once they teach them how to make RDB you will get the same offer too.

In fact, on any decent sized application, the only part our team usually can touch is just portion of it.

With normal management you can always explain that some changes in other parts of application are needed to correct poor design or to gain speed, that is if you care of course.

In fact, I think something like your image enhancing can benefit greatly from such endeavour. Let me ask my friend who works at NASA on imaging to see if he got some comments about such :)

Job offers are always welcome :)

--> it cost those companies to revamp... they are out to make money... the cost goes straight back to customers... Bit surprised such simple concept can't be understood.

The cost goes to customers anyway, the question is how much will they get for their money.

What I am trying to say is that you get more from hardware than from software for the same amount of money. Not because hardware is cheap mind you, but because software is expensive and that expensiveness in 95% of cases is not justified.

Yes YOU ARE programming GOD who is better than your peers. You are IT.

I never said that nor I intended to do so. I was just pissed off by all those wussies who keep whining how programming is hard. It was your choice to study it and get a programming job so have some dignity and take it like a man. It is also very interesting that I never hear any engineers working on a CPU complain how hard it is to design one.

Your_Boss

07-09-2006, 11:35 AM

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32790

AMD makes the first move it seems...i just downloaded and will start testing with FX62

Well? How well does it work? :)

ZX7891

07-09-2006, 11:54 AM

the dual core optimizer isnt RHT sadly

AndrewZorn

07-09-2006, 11:57 AM

the dual core 'optimiser' (am i the only one who notices the misspelling?) really only fixes the few apps that messed up on dual core systems, it fixes that sync problem or whatever. not reverse hyperthreading in the least.

ted3

07-09-2006, 12:47 PM

I thought AMD denied there was a problem with X2 when these timing problems was first pointed out a year ago? So why have they made this "optimiser"? THG reported strange results from their famous multitasking "stresstest" concerning X2 DVD encoding, the task had been more or less ignored, that problem could be related to this optimizer-thing. And now, the fact that ppl over in the XS AMD forum are reporting improvements when using this optimizer doesnt match well with AMDs denials. Too early to tell yet, but it could look like AMD has to bend over and take whats coming, the claims that Pentium D's was not real dualcores could strike back at them, at least Pentium D dont need any software patches...

Anyway, easy to forgive when considering the performance advantage of X2 over P-D, noone is perfect (they just like to think so), and people would still have bought X2 instead of P-D.

i found nemo

07-09-2006, 12:58 PM

i found nemo

07-09-2006, 01:04 PM

It is also very interesting that I never hear any engineers working on a CPU complain how hard it is to design one.

who do you work with? ( what company? )

i found nemo

07-10-2006, 03:12 PM

wtf? no answers lol

Gerry_W

07-10-2006, 03:28 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32885

Actually, this was all a rumor. At least for AMD, that is; they're not planning to release this anytime soon, if the inquirer can be trusted. :p:

ted3

07-13-2006, 09:37 AM

wtf? no answers lol
It could take a while to get reply from that guy... However, someone mention Boeing to him and suddenly, "been there, they were sooooo impressed!". What a convenient coincidence... Now combine that with being experienced in programming but dont know anything about how the software business works in reality? His posts made me need another housing fan to remove the smell of con artist from my rig...

audiofreak

07-15-2006, 03:04 AM

who do you work with? ( what company? )

wtf? no answers lol

I work for hire over the Internet. If you need more details, ask.

It could take a while to get reply from that guy...

You bet it could, but only because I have other things to do than hanging around here.

However, someone mention Boeing to him and suddenly, "been there, they were sooooo impressed!". What a convenient coincidence...

Read again, I never said that I have "been there", but they were impressed. Coincidence or not, it wasn't me who mentioned Boeing first in a chest-beating attempt.

I was criticizing the trend which is setting amongst the developers and that is to ask others (hardware vendors) for the easy way out, while other industry branches do not have that commodity. Does the word "slacking" ring any bells?

His posts made me need another housing fan to remove the smell of con artist from my rig...

Or you have just farted from too much brain exercise while trying to understand my post and you won't admit it? :hrhr:

Sorry, but you will need HEPA air-purifier for that, no housing (perhaps you meant case?) fan will do. :nono:

ted3

07-15-2006, 04:33 AM

audiofreak

07-15-2006, 10:20 AM

What a mature reply, i guess rear end humor is fun in your age? Just admit youre a student who thinks he knows everything. Reply in a few years when you reached the point where you understand that the more you learn the more you come to realize how little you know. You made it clear that you are not even close to that point yet, you obviously have no real world experience. Con artist, 100% sure now.

Tsk, tsk, tsk... you could have checked my age in my profile, that would spare both the others and me from having to read such rediculous claims.

Moreover, you can't actually say that your reply to my original posting was anything better to begin with.

I am quoting your post again for the record:

His posts made me need another housing fan to remove the smell of con artist from my rig...

Now let me break it down for you:

- You are not addressing me directly but instead you are gossiping behind my back
- You are talking about me in derogatory terms insinuating that I stink and that I am a liar with no proof to back it up
- There is no smiley face next to it

We hopefully all know how such posts (and posters) are classified.

Following are your claims about me based on my reply to your mouthwashing:

You made it clear that you are not even close to that point yet

you obviously have no real world experience.

Con artist, 100% sure now.

Thanks God that just you saying it doesn't make it true.

You haven't challenged any of my claims but instead you are hitting below the belt by disputing my credibility while you still haven't established your own.

It is such a mature way of discussion -- congratulations ted3 for mastering it so quickly.

ted3

07-15-2006, 11:10 AM

Tnx, i know im the best. :toast: All other programmers are just whores for the money, they dont care about the art in it. See, i have no idea about teamwork, i spit on other programmers skills. Now does that sound like you or what?

I dont want to play "mention a big company and i made apps for them too" or any other game of yours, you can reply anyone with better credentials and greater achievements anyway, thats what con artists do best. In fact its the only thing they do, lol. Ofcourse i cant prove what a braggard con artist you are, but as long as im convinced that noone who been in the trade could say anything of what you said then it works for me.

Yo Audio Freak!Still kicking ass all over the internet, i see
Obviously not the first time you state extreme controversial opinions on forums. Youre one of those who can get into an argument about how to correctly wind a wristwatch.

Sory for off topic, i think everyone except one agrees that core multiplexing would have been/will be of benefit to users.

audiofreak

07-15-2006, 02:08 PM

Tnx, i know im the best. :toast: All other programmers are just whores for the money, they dont care about the art in it. See, i have no idea about teamwork, i spit on other programmers skills. Now does that sound like you or what?

Of course it doesn't. Yet again you are attacking and discrediting me personally while I have been commenting on a (IMO) negative trend in the industry.

I dont want to play "mention a big company and i made apps for them too" or any other game of yours, you can reply anyone with better credentials and greater achievements anyway, thats what con artists do best.

Are you intellectually challenged or what? Read what I said again, but do it slowly few times until it sinks in, I really hate when I must QFT myself and I apologize to everyone for the offtopic:

As for your experience, I can match you when it comes to general programming, drivers, low level, peek'n'poke, but I must bow down when it comes to Boeing and SQL.

Note how I said "I can match you", and not "I am better than you". Also note how I said "I must bow down when it comes to Boeing and SQL".

Hello?!? Do you get it? I am not a con artist, he knows SQL and I don't, he has worked for Boeing and I haven't. I just mentioned that a company I work for hire over the Internet had some contact with Boeing as an example how code optimization can be much better approach than CMT or RHT and that is all. I am not stealing anyone's 15 minutes of fame because I don't care.

In fact its the only thing they do, lol.

Then perhaps you could share your doing with us if you are so bold in accusing someone else of doing nothing?

Ofcourse i cant prove what a braggard con artist you are, but as long as im convinced that noone who been in the trade could say anything of what you said then it works for me.

Aside from not even being able to prove that you know proper English by using correct spelling in your posts I consider it normal that you can't prove something which is not true. If anyone could do that then the world would quickly come to a bitter end.

Btw, if you keep calling me names I will report your next post instead of wasting time to reply to such childish acts from a 36yr old.

Obviously not the first time you state extreme controversial opinions on forums. Youre one of those who can get into an argument about how to correctly wind a wristwatch.

The person who posted that comment is a friend of mine from another forum. And no I wouldn't because I do not even use wristwatches so get a life.

i think everyone except one agrees that core multiplexing would have been/will be of benefit to users.

That goes to show that you haven't even bothered to read the whole thread. In other words, you can think whatever you want but when the facts don't match your thinking you simply end up looking rediculous.