Swiftech
Page 1 of 8 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 194

Thread: Core Multiplexing technology???

  1. #1
    the jedi master Tony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk/Sunnyvale CA
    Posts
    3,884

    Core Multiplexing technology???

    Bios rev 1181, Intel badaxe, could this be reverse hyperthreading on Intel...could this be Intels answer to AMD secret weapon?




    We wait to see
    Got a problem with your OCZ product....?
    Have a look over here
    Tony AKA BigToe


    Tuning PC's for speed...Run whats fast, not what you think is fast

  2. #2
    Banned freecableguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    4,088
    yes we do

    EDIT: pictures added for effect.

    Conroe: 2 -> 1 core possible



    Kentsfield: 4 -> 2 cores possible



    -FCG
    Last edited by freecableguy; 07-15-2006 at 02:28 PM.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    79
    If that is indeed that, than Kentsfield will rock =P .

  4. #4
    Banned freecableguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    4,088
    4 cores -> multiplexed to 2 cores....imagine that.

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


  5. #5
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    909
    Are you two smoking weed and not sharing?

  6. #6
    I am Xtreme Lestat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SiliCORN Valley
    Posts
    5,602
    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.
    "These are the rules. Everybody fights, nobody quits. If you don't do your job I'll kill you myself.
    Welcome to the Roughnecks"

    "Anytime you think I'm being too rough, anytime you think I'm being too tough, anytime you miss-your-mommy, QUIT!
    You sign your 1248, you get your gear, and you take a stroll down washout lane. Do you get me?"

    Heat Ebay Feedback

  7. #7
    I am Xtreme Lestat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SiliCORN Valley
    Posts
    5,602
    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.
    "These are the rules. Everybody fights, nobody quits. If you don't do your job I'll kill you myself.
    Welcome to the Roughnecks"

    "Anytime you think I'm being too rough, anytime you think I'm being too tough, anytime you miss-your-mommy, QUIT!
    You sign your 1248, you get your gear, and you take a stroll down washout lane. Do you get me?"

    Heat Ebay Feedback

  8. #8
    Xtreme Addict vapb400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,617
    WOW. and it was as simple as a BIOS update.

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

  9. #9
    I am Xtreme Lestat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SiliCORN Valley
    Posts
    5,602
    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.
    "These are the rules. Everybody fights, nobody quits. If you don't do your job I'll kill you myself.
    Welcome to the Roughnecks"

    "Anytime you think I'm being too rough, anytime you think I'm being too tough, anytime you miss-your-mommy, QUIT!
    You sign your 1248, you get your gear, and you take a stroll down washout lane. Do you get me?"

    Heat Ebay Feedback

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Waterloo, Ontario
    Posts
    48
    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.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    241
    yeah, I can make random speculation as good as the next guy, anyone actually have any info, or just speculation?

  12. #12
    the jedi master Tony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk/Sunnyvale CA
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by BrownTown
    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/maga...ading-1205.htm

    Good read
    Got a problem with your OCZ product....?
    Have a look over here
    Tony AKA BigToe


    Tuning PC's for speed...Run whats fast, not what you think is fast

  13. #13
    the jedi master Tony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Manchester uk/Sunnyvale CA
    Posts
    3,884
    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?
    Last edited by Tony; 06-22-2006 at 05:22 PM.
    Got a problem with your OCZ product....?
    Have a look over here
    Tony AKA BigToe


    Tuning PC's for speed...Run whats fast, not what you think is fast

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    25
    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

  15. #15
    c[_] STEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    20,366
    gee, I think i've been saying this for a year now and people keep telling me its impossible or inefficient lol.
    Heatware || 01.01.08; AND 111.2%

    Dead Z7S-WS? Click!. || XS Z7S-WS Thread || Current Dead Asus Z7S-WS count: 26+ ($15,000 in dead motherboards).
    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
    Want to use my Anti-asus logo? Go ahead, but use this link please!: http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/a...sus/noasus.gif
    Bring back the game. http://reclaimyourgame.com/. EA are mean.

  16. #16
    Xtreme Cruncher Hassan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by STEvil
    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


  17. #17
    Registered User overclocker.at's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Austria/Vorarlberg
    Posts
    27
    CMT (Core Multiplexing Technology) only for Intel Core Extreme

  18. #18
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Belgium / Brussels
    Posts
    104
    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 ?
    AXP1700+ DUT3C @ 2200 Mhz / 1.825 VCore
    El Cheapo Twinmos dual channel PC3200 @ 200 Mhz / 2.95 VDimm / 2-3-3-11
    Abit NF7-S no mods

  19. #19
    Xtreme Addict theteamaqua's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Herbert's House in Family Guy
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by freecableguy
    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??
    E6600 @ 3.6
    IN9 32x MAX
    EVGA 8800Ultra
    750W

  20. #20
    Xtreme Mentor uOpt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,000
    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.

  21. #21
    Banned freecableguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    4,088
    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.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by freecableguy; 06-23-2006 at 03:28 PM.

  22. #22
    Xtreme Mentor mascaras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by overclocker.at
    CMT (Core Multiplexing Technology) only for Intel Core Extreme

    where did you saw that???


    regards

    [Review] Core i7 920 & UD5 » Here!! « .....[Review] XFX GTX260 216SP Black Edition » Here!! «
    [Review] ASUS HD4870X2 TOP » Here!! «
    .....[Review] EVGA 750i SLi FTW » Here!! «
    [Review] BFG 9800GTX 512MB » Here!! « .....[Review] Geforce 9800GX2 1GB » Here!! «
    [Review] EVGA GTX280 1GB GDDR3 » Here!! « .....[Review] Powercolor HD4870 512MB GDDR5 » Here!! «

  23. #23
    YouTube Addict nn_step's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Klaatu barada nikto
    Posts
    18,439
    Quote Originally Posted by uOpt
    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.
    well I agree with the statement that Intel's version seems very limited in nature...
    Fast computers breed slow, lazy programmers
    The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay.
    http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/
    Modern Ram, makes an old overclocker miss BH-5 and the fun it was

  24. #24
    Xtreme Cruncher lawrywild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    London - UK
    Posts
    3,368
    IMO

    bad for 24/7

    awesome for superpi
    Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3GHz . DFI DK P45-T2RS Plus . XFX 9800GT 512MB . 8GB OCZ Blade PC2-9200 . WD6400AAKS AHCI .
    Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic . Hanns.G 28" LCD . Thermalright U120-E . Seasonic S12 600w . Windows 7 Professional E Retail x64 .

  25. #25
    Xtreme Mentor uOpt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,000
    Quote Originally Posted by nn_step
    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.

Page 1 of 8 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •