Go Back   Hardware Canucks > NEWS & REVIEWS > Rumor Mill

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 03:21 PM
muse108dc's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver North
Posts: 1,610
Default

multiple cores makes more and more sense and with programs being multithreaded you should theoretically be able to get a high effective speed. 2 threads processed on 2 dfferent threads for example on a one core processor with a speed of 4ghz gives each thread roughly a 2ghz each, now on a dual core each thread gets its own core and even if that dual core is clocked less you essentially get a 6ghz processor.

Once game devs start deviding processes and threads more and more the potential for mutlicores to take off is huge.

That is very hypothetical, dont quote me, its a lot less efficient than that but principal is pretty much correct
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 04:06 PM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Terrace, BC
Posts: 558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sswilson View Post
Actually, when you think of what most folks are doing with their computers these days, multi-cores makes a lot more sense than higher clock speed.

Multi-cores might not benefit most gamers as those are looking for pure processing power, but imagine how well multi-cores work for the average computer user who wants to run 6 or 7 non-intensive apps at once. Rather than having to share processor time, each app can have a dedicated core all to itself.

I'm not sure if XP is smart enough to do that, but folks who know a bit about the way things work can easily set it up in task manager to run individual apps on separate cores.

That my freinds (IMO) is the wave of the future!! :)
Umm, in SMP computing, the CPU cannot split up tasks to differant cores. ITs still one CPU. Fr this to happen, you need more than one CPU.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 05:04 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

88 cores - running at how much power ? 32W each ? 30W each ? So now your CPU alone will require a dedicated outlet and run in excess of 2~3KW/h LOL !
For the CPU alone not counting the 8 core and 12 core NVIDIA GeForce G120 chipsets :D

Thanks I'll pass on that - they are probably going to use new technology to emulate that many cores, but each with a very low clock, say I dunno, 40Mhz per core ? :D
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 07:22 PM
muse108dc's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver North
Posts: 1,610
Default

quad cores dont use twice as much power as core2duos now do they? CPUs get more efficient as the number of cores increase it seems. I dont think we will see amazingly power hungry 100core chips, sure more power than now but not a humungous amount more
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 07:40 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muse108dc View Post
quad cores dont use twice as much power as core2duos now do they? CPUs get more efficient as the number of cores increase it seems. I dont think we will see amazingly power hungry 100core chips, sure more power than now but not a humungous amount more
Well I agree, but face it, even if they by miracle make those individual cores run at only 20W each, that's still over 1600W (rounded) for all 88 cores - That's still a lot - Imagine the motherboard's design to support that supply in power, I can't see something like that run on air cooling - now let's go even further down to 5W per core, it still would be quite a lot of heat comapred to your 65W dual cores now. They'll have to integrate freon cooling systems on the motherboards! :D

To be honest this is a major joke - who the hell needs 80 cores, let alone 12, it's ridiculous, nobody in their right mind would need that (at least not for end users playing games and running Office 2007 :D)

This can home in handy for realtime HD editing and 3D rendering - I'd love to see some Raytracing benchmarks on 88 cores
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 07:50 PM
1Tanker's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarKStar View Post
88 cores - running at how much power ? 32W each ? 30W each ? So now your CPU alone will require a dedicated outlet and run in excess of 2~3KW/h LOL !
For the CPU alone not counting the 8 core and 12 core NVIDIA GeForce G120 chipsets :D

Thanks I'll pass on that - they are probably going to use new technology to emulate that many cores, but each with a very low clock, say I dunno, 40Mhz per core ? :D
Not quite:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intel
Fine-grain power management - The individual compute engines and data routers in each core can be activated or put to sleep based on the performance required by the application a person is running. In addition, new circuit techniques give the chip world-class power efficiencyŚ1 teraflops requires only 62W, comparable to desktop processors sold today.
Intel Tera-scale Processor
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 08:22 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Yes but what if ALL cores are used 100%, in a rendering app that supports multi cores....
Then what ?
And I don't think those processors will bea imed at end-users just yet, they wil be ridiculously expensive, let alone the motherboard to support it :D

I'm wondering with so many cores and games being optimized for multi core, what effect will this have on a GPU - you probably won't need one - Actually, this can come in handy for CPU based PhysX acceleration, but there again you have powerful GPUs now capable of doing so. You are going to start to see multi core GPUs soon.

I can only imagine watching those 88 cores usage % on the task amanger :D
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 10:34 PM
muse108dc's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver North
Posts: 1,610
Default

ray tracing looks really impressive and would thrive on a 80+ core processor, which is probably why intel wants it adopted. If intel can keep the power and heat down 80+ cores could be the holy grail of pcs, or at least something close to it
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old July 16, 2008, 11:27 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muse108dc View Post
ray tracing looks really impressive and would thrive on a 80+ core processor, which is probably why intel wants it adopted. If intel can keep the power and heat down 80+ cores could be the holy grail of pcs, or at least something close to it
It would be the holy grail for game developers and people who work a lot with CG - Imagine rendering on a dual core vs. 80 core.

I'd love to see those raytracing benchmarks, are we talking realtime here, say 25FPS (PAL) 29.97 (NTSC) - that would be great really.

I wonder what 3DMark06 score sucha setup would get if you combine the CPU tests along with your GPU - most current GPUs might drag behind LOL
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes