Quad-Core, Early Tests

This forum is for help with and discussion about your video hardware.

Quad-Core, Early Tests

Postby TaranT » Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:34 am

Quad-core Intel CPUs should be available Real Soon Now (this month?). Some tests on pre-production chips show significant improvement for video rendering and encoding - reductions from 30% to 50% - relative to the current dual-core Extreme.

link 1
link 2
link 3
TaranT
 
Joined: 16 May 2001

Postby Willen » Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:44 am

Intel is firing on all cylinders now. Another technique developed from the Pentium 4/D chips finds it's way into the current Core 2 Duo CPUs. Cut 2 Core 2 Duo dies off a wafer together and package it as a single CPU chip ala Pentium D 9xx processors and you have a Core 2 Quad CPU. The only problem I have with this architecture is that it still relies on a front-side bus design that eventually will not be able to handle the bandwidth that future iterations of these CPUs will require.
Having trouble playing back videos? I recommend: Image
User avatar
Willen
Now in Hi-Def!
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Location: SOS-Dan HQ
Status: Melancholy

Postby oldwrench » Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:47 am

My bet is, in six months, they will have four cores on one die using a 45nm die.
Where did you say I'm going?.... And what am I doing in a handbasket?

Come and join us on the tiny but fun forum at http://www.allanime.org
User avatar
oldwrench
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: Erehwon, MN

Postby Joe88 » Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:44 am

I was reading about these quad-core
there was a review for the QX6700 in PC WORLD

Image

there really not enough motive for me to buy one
im happy with my E6600
and since that quad-core chips costs $1500 ... :roll:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115011

in Q1 they will release more version of it
like dual E6600 on one chip and a buget dual QE6300
Image
Image
User avatar
Joe88
 
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Location: NYC

Postby Zero1 » Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:43 pm

I'd sooner they make faster single core CPUs... There is only so much, or certain things that can be or benefit from multithreading. Encoding isn't really one of them (a fast single core would be better than a dual core of the same combined clock speed)
User avatar
Zero1
 
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Location: Sheffield, United Kingdom

Postby xoverburnx » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:19 am

Everyone is focusing on minimizing other bottlenecks at the moment, seirously think back.

in 2003 we were on the verge of 4GHz CPUs, pentiums were clocking 3.8ghz, now fast foward to 2007 and the best chips are 2.16ghz. what happened? well cpu clock speed isn't really going to improve much for most things.

Very true that for video rendering it does help but the mainstream market is not doing much video encoding now is it.

The bottlenecks are hdd access speeds, memory speeds and bandwidth from other devices and across the motherboard.

I didn't really notice but at one of my offices I noticed the "old" laptops that were being thrown out, some machines which warranties had run out. They were "faster" than the current models we were using. I hope this all gets sorted out I would like to see some major jumps in processing power, the core effectiveness is a step in the right direction, programs just need to utilize them correctly or else intel's 5 year projection of having 80-core CPUs available will be for naught.
User avatar
xoverburnx
 
Joined: 21 May 2006
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Scintilla » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:15 am

xoverburnx wrote:in 2003 we were on the verge of 4GHz CPUs, pentiums were clocking 3.8ghz, now fast foward to 2007 and the best chips are 2.16ghz. what happened?

Intel realized that Prescott sucked and couldn't be pushed any further, that's what happened. And thank goodness for that, because it forced them to adopt more efficient processor designs. (You will appreciate the fact that AMD has never had to push clock speeds that high in order to remain competitive.)
ImageImage
:pizza: :pizza: Image :pizza: :pizza:
User avatar
Scintilla
(for EXTREME)
 
Joined: 31 Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Status: Quo

Postby Willen » Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:53 am

Scintilla wrote:
xoverburnx wrote:in 2003 we were on the verge of 4GHz CPUs, pentiums were clocking 3.8ghz, now fast foward to 2007 and the best chips are 2.16ghz. what happened?

Intel realized that Prescott sucked and couldn't be pushed any further, that's what happened. And thank goodness for that, because it forced them to adopt more efficient processor designs. (You will appreciate the fact that AMD has never had to push clock speeds that high in order to remain competitive.)

This is the primary reason why I skipped from Intel's Pentium III to an AMD Athlon64 X2. The inefficiencies of Intel's Pentium 4 NetBurst architecture was a giant turn off for me. It was like using a Ford Mustang to transport a half ton of gravel instead of a Ford F-150. :|
Having trouble playing back videos? I recommend: Image
User avatar
Willen
Now in Hi-Def!
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Location: SOS-Dan HQ
Status: Melancholy

Postby lister007 » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:32 pm

anyone read the "era of tera" thing, intel making a chip that does terabits of calcs at real speed or something essentially an 80 core, will be used in gov in the next five years or so.......don't pick me up on that cos dont know the detail, read it a while back, but check it out, I mean search on google for it
Spatchcock..........A dressed and split chicken for roasting or grilling on a spit.
Bring it
Image
Berserk or crazy...??? (image shack sucks will have a banner for this too when it doesn't!)
User avatar
lister007
 
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Location: Great Britain, um the country with the best flag;)

Postby lister007 » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:34 pm

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/ ... 04comp.htm

think this was it.... :shock: blah blah blah never been up with the time, buy a comp today and it will be outta date tommorow! by the time you've finished discussing the new thing there is something brand new out!......not that I think thats not the way it should be :)
Spatchcock..........A dressed and split chicken for roasting or grilling on a spit.
Bring it
Image
Berserk or crazy...??? (image shack sucks will have a banner for this too when it doesn't!)
User avatar
lister007
 
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Location: Great Britain, um the country with the best flag;)

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:46 pm

It's pretty damn impressive... however the current architectures are hitting a wall in terms of I/O and memory communication so having a faster than light CPU isn't that big of an issue when the bottleneck is somewhere else to begin with.
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Postby Willen » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:12 am

Well, Intel did hint that they'll be moving to a point-to-point serial interface when they revealed details of Nehalem recently.
Anandtech wrote:Nehalem will no longer use a FSB but a serial point to point interconnect. Even more revolutionary is the fact that Nehalem will have an integrated memory controller (IMC) and that the number of serial interconnects is variable (Intel's version of "HyperTransport").

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/in ... i=2955&p=3

An integrated memory controller (which AMD has been using for years) will also help with mitigating any I/O bottlenecks.
Having trouble playing back videos? I recommend: Image
User avatar
Willen
Now in Hi-Def!
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Location: SOS-Dan HQ
Status: Melancholy

Postby Kariudo » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:51 am

that gets me wondering how amd's fusion core will turn out (fusion core will have the gpu integrated onto the cpu die, I'm guessing it'l achive a similar result as integrating the memory controller had)
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/displa ... 34458.html
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Kariudo
Twilight prince
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Los taquitos unidos
Status: 1924 bots banned and counting!

Postby Kalium » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:36 am

Looks like my databases professor was right. We have all these nice and parallel systems, but most programmers have no idea how to use them.

(I do, but it's a pain.)
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:10 am

Kalium wrote:Looks like my databases professor was right. We have all these nice and parallel systems, but most programmers have no idea how to use them.

(I do, but it's a pain.)


There's a whole graduate course at my university dedicated to building programs for parallel computing - my roommates are both planning on taking it. The fact that there's entire courses designed around it makes it seem like it's a rather advanced topic. Perhaps there are just so few people out there that find it interesting enough to pursue.
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Next

Return to Video Hardware Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest