Printable View
Your correct, the simple problem is they hit a heat wall and to increase performance added cores instead of MHz..Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
That simple, they don't know how to build a 7000mhz air cooled chip yet.. Would be nice if they did but until then we live with more cores or as I suggested to you, build a E8600 dual core and clock the crap out of it.
I bet you could get close to 5000 on water cooling and that should be fast enough for you.. and cheap too..:up:
I don't know if you see Chess as a game or application...but it's still a boardgame..and they are just the right way to go with these multi core cpu's!!
Many years we have wait for them.
How more cores i see..how more the chess engine like it...from the E6600 to Q6600 and now I7 core 920 i get millions and millions more positions in one second!
And it will comes better when we have the cluster version from these chess engines,because then we can connect different computers to each other and use all
these cores from these connected computers...then it will come interesting!!
When the games comes multi core then is chess already step further...Cluster!
well thats what doesnt make sense though imo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
they hit a power ceiling? gulftown will have 6 cores in a 135W tdp, right?
thats 22.5W per core... now remove uncore and L3 cache and imc, and your left with an actual tdp per core of less than 20W... that can hardly be the power limit... :stick:
so intel and amd can produce less than 20W cores at around 3ghz, but they cant produce 40W cores that either clock notably higher or have a better ipc?
sorry, but im not buying it :P
taking the core apart and reworking it means a LOT of r&d and r&d is biiiig money... just doubling your previous design up and maybe changing a few bits here and there is much cheaper... thats the way the dram industry and nand industry works, and i think intel and amd want to go down that route to save costs and avoid delays and failures when tinkering with the actual cores...
all fair and fine... if this would actually work for the end users like it does with nand and dram... but it doesnt... id really like to know how much power is wasted on a global basis on additional cpu cores being idle... it must be an insane amount of energy...
bring in atom... now THATS innovation!
intel again stumbles over a great design as with the pentium M, and what do they do? AGAIN they break out in political internal BS arguments and instead of pushing forward innovation they cripple the design artificially so they can keep ramming more cores down everybodies throats and charge for it big time... and amd? they dont have anything comparable so they dont even try to compete... oh please... the cpu industry is in a really sad state...
no wonder intel pushes for gpus, they know that they risk pulling a blue ray victory, winning the cpu segment over once and for good, to find out most people really dont care about fast cpus anymore :D
But more cores are better then higher factory overclocks
I just wish core i7 started at 8 cores :rofl:
more cores = to less core at higher clocks.. because in the end they all output about the same raw processing power right??? and since their biggest costumer are big server and not desktop they focus on that.. but still dedicate founds for R&D to improve on thermal envelope while increasing overall perf each year.. but the biggest problem in the desktop is the fact that we cant really use more than 4 cores.. so what we need is an app or some sort of cod integrated into windows to allow multi threading easily
That is what Chess exaclty has...the integrated cod is now optimal using all the cores at 100%.
And if you look into my list you can see that for example a E8600 @4.9Ghz is already much slower then a core i7 920 @2.67Ghz Stock speed!!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=202139
89) TogaII142JD-2cpu 20/43 02:26 36.452.932 3.971.241 +0.29 E8600 @4.9Ghz DDR3: 8-8-8-21
78) TogaII142JD-8cpu 21/48 03:59 156.925.687 5.327.823 +0.24 Nehalem @2.67Ghz(Core i7 920ES) DDR3: 8-8-8-19
So lower clocks but more cores gives me in this example 1.356.582 positions more in one second!!
And you can see if you overclock these multi cores cpu's to higher levels what speed gaines you get!
It's very clear,the more cores is much better,only game sofware is behind,except some off them and like Chess software!
And this year testing Cluster!
nope. we need raw performance. there are a lot of things that can't be executed in parallel, so even more cores are going to be obsolete!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
since when are the biggest customers server and not desktop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
far from it afaik... similar to professional graphics server cpus have a very high margin, but its a limited market and intel makes more money selling entry level and mainstream desktop cpus than server cpus for sure...
but intel and amd are cheap and dont want to create two seperate cpu lines for server and desktop, so now they are going to simply seperate the two lines by adjusting the amount of cores per cpu.
if you know so much about coding you KNOW that most code can only be parallelized so much and some cant be parallelized at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
This is making me think I'll save cash and go i7 instead of i9 since I can't use i9 and its an absolute waste for me, unless the cost is the same AND the OC results are the same. Otherwise, screw it. 6 cores is a waste unless you're doing 3dmark, folding, or chess, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
i dont think this really helps in 3dmark... sure, itll boost the cpu score, but im not sure if more than 8 virtual cores actually result in a propper boost... dave? can you prove me wrong? ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller
I think that this is what I am going to upgrade to from my QX9650.. a nice 32nm Hexcore :)
Intel never fail to surprise me with their innovation and superior products to the opposition.
1) They make the best CPU's
2) They make the best chipsets
3) They make the best SSD's (consumer level)
4) Are they going to go the same way with their GPU's?
Now this is somewhat apples/oranges because of the different archs,Quote:
Originally Posted by JPQY
But, *ballpark* numbers, 2c @ 5ghz should match with 4c @ 2.5ghz. Youre saying 8c @ 2.5ghz is winning? Well, duh. It's twice as much. You should be expecting 4million calcs/sec more but you're only getting 1.4m. And you say it's using all cores/threads at 100%.
You'd be better off clustering two of those 2c systems, assuming you can cluster at 100% efficiency (probably not realistic).
It looks to me as though it proves the opposite of your theory. What of power usage? That can tip the scales (even tip them either way when you start considering clustering).
That said, I'd still buy a quad over a dual, personal preference.
Does chess excite anyone else as much as this fellow? ;) To each their own!
no, your right in all but Vantage and maybe PCMark06..Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
in 3DMARK06 I got killed and it is the failure of the program to take advantage of what I have.
Probably because their R&D budget is higher than all of their competitors combined. (although that is not the sole reason it does play a major role)Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
see dave! :P :P :PQuote:
Originally Posted by gumballguy
i made a similar comment but it was removed cause dave thought it was too rude mentioning that nobody really plays chess, of those that do, i think online tournaments are much more interesting than playing vs your little grey box :D
can you do a quick run and try so we have some direct scores to compare? or is there no gain whatsoever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
you can disable 2 cores on one cpu, right? that would get you 6 cores with ht... with numa and all, but that shouldnt matter too much for the cpu test.
L5335Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
thought it only clock to 2ghz, they have a TDp of only 50W so that means 12,5W per core TDP (which means they acutally consume less).
20W per core on 32nm and 3rd generation HKMG should be enough to deliver a cpu that clocks around 3ghz.
You're gonna need it Dave... :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
The guy in Japan just announced new results on his well-tuned dual W5580 rig... And they beat down all your speed records... :rofl::rofl::rofl:
And he took them up to 32G... That's 34,359,738,368 digits of Pi - done in 8 and half hours using 70GB of ram and 80GB of disk.
I think a major problem with high clockspeeds has to do with signal integrity. At such high speeds, it becomes very hard to distinguish noise from signal, I should think.
When are we going to see a fundamental change in how they produce these chips, geared more towards clock speeds?? You would think by now we would be at 4ghz stock chips shipping. Why are we still in the 2.5ghz low 3.0 ghz range stock?? These 6-cores should be shipping with 5ghz stock IMO. back in the Pentium 4 days they were all about speeds going up. Now its all about cores that cant even be utilized to their full extent by most people buying them.
The frequency races died with the P4, Intel pretty much ran the P4 design into the ground a few times during it's life-span. But they discovered that it is easier to make more cores which run slower at much lower power consumption than making those existing cores run much faster in the given power envelope.
IIRC, IBM's POWER6 series of CPU's were running at stock speeds of nearly 5.00GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCarLessDriven
Perhaps there are certain barriers in the x86 ISA that make scaling clock speeds with sustainable levels of power consumption difficult?
on crown x86 performance...yesQuote:
Originally Posted by perkam
price is a whole different game... beckton will be expensive like hell.. and is actually aiming to get some unix marketshare.
perhaps you should talk to some Intel PR, they reach out to each company that uses unix boches to provide additional free services and hardware for conversion to x86.
Xeon Series Gulftown TDP 95W:clap:
That isn't anything to be happy about considering its a workstation chip which usually have TDPs 20-30W less than desktop chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by sxs112
Perkam
All Bloomfield based Xeon's have 130w TDP just like the desktop i7's.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
This only changes with Gainestown whose X55xx has a tdp of 95w