AMD, Intel Plotting Six-Core CPU Releases

[vaughn2k]

[citation][nom]loomis86[/nom]Why six cores? Doesn't it make more sense to double? 1 core...2 core...4 core...8 core...? so in a decade we'll all be running 256 core CPUs of which the cores composed of carbon nanotubes and single electron transistors running at a terahertz with a 8192 bit wide bus on a 32 socket double sided motherboard![/citation]


Yep, and my nose bleeds....

 

[Shadow703793]

[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]You're missing the point, I think. The argument actually is very much valid, and alive. Applications which are written well to take advantage of multiple cores run quite fast on a dual-core, and so on. But most apps are not written with this in mind, so you can throw them at 6 cores, or 8 cores but it won't utilize the power which it has at its disposal. That's the point. Yes, of course more cores are better, but are they better because you think they are, or because they really are. Hardware and software should compliment one another, it's not optimal when one hardware outruns software so far ahead that it's actually pointless to pay for the fast hardware.[/citation]
Most apps can't be written in a multi threaded nature. Sure some things (ie UI,etc) can be handled by a different thread but today's CPUs/GPUs are fast enough it won't make a difference.

 

[Honis]

[citation][nom]miloo[/nom]hopefully quad core price will drop a lot once the 6 core comes out~ hehe[/citation]Considering you can get a quad core AMD 620 for some $90 on newegg, I think your excuse is invalid (recent price drops due to i3 and i5 and AMD xx5 releases).

Can't say I need 6 cores at home but at work the extra 2 cores would be amazing when compiling with 2-3+ windows of Acrobat reader, and/or debuggers, programming environments, company required security and backup software...

 

[Abrahm]

[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]You're missing the point, I think. The argument actually is very much valid, and alive. Applications which are written well to take advantage of multiple cores run quite fast on a dual-core, and so on. But most apps are not written with this in mind, so you can throw them at 6 cores, or 8 cores but it won't utilize the power which it has at its disposal. That's the point. Yes, of course more cores are better, but are they better because you think they are, or because they really are. Hardware and software should compliment one another, it's not optimal when one hardware outruns software so far ahead that it's actually pointless to pay for the fast hardware.[/citation]

You are completely missing the point. More cores makes for better multi-tasking. You under estimate how difficult it is to efficiently utilize parallel processing, and the overhead that is involved. Some tasks simply can't be distributed across multiple cores. While it's nice for processor intensive programs to utilize all of your cores, most programs don't need to, and those extra cores allow you to run more programs at the same time without hindering each other's performance.

 

[brisingamen]

i so getting an amd sex core!

 

[welshmousepk]

nice, but not something i care about. i want AMD to release a faster quad (32nm?), so i can get more gaming performance. 2 more cores? pointless for me.

anyone know if AMD have any new quads in the works? something to justify an upgrade from a 3.6Ghz PII?

 

[Nexus52085]

I know I'm ready for six cores. I need some help with the programs that I run. I'm with falchard. We all know Intel's chips are going to be exorbitantly priced compared to AMD, so I'll stick with AMD.

 

[El_Capitan]

Personally, I don't care that software isn't ready for 6 cores. All I know is, I'm ready for 4 cores to go down in price.

 

[Guest]

I have a crazy idea, I just patented it, 7 cores. Suck on that intel and AMD.

 

[gsacks]

[citation][nom]fatkid35[/nom]omni your right, software developers need to get their multicore sh*t together.[/citation]

Yeah, those damn developers. Because writing multi-core, thread safe apps is child's play.

 

[apache_lives]

AMD Phenom X5 = LOL

 

[Guest]

welshmouuse i doubt its your cpu thats holding you back

 

[ljbade]

Im waiting for the AM3 8 cores to come out in 2011 before upgrading... 4 -> 6 isn't that much of an improvement, but 4 -> 8 is a lot better.

 

[jomofro39]

I think we all get the argument about cores by now. Next.

 

[sabot00]

[citation][nom]Aleksa2009[/nom]Yes AMD will always produce variations of binned product e.g X4=X3 and X2X6=X5 CPU's.ATI 5870=5850 and 5830 etc[/citation]
All companies do that to improve margins.
nVidia:
GTX 280(5) -> GTX 260/275
GTS 250/9800GTX -> 9800GT
Intel:
i7 975 -> 920
i3 540 -> 530
Just to give you some examples.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Can someone tell me why the HELL we need 6 cores? I'm waiting for an answer. Really.

 

[omnimodis78]

[citation][nom]Abrahm[/nom]You are completely missing the point. More cores makes for better multi-tasking. You under estimate how difficult it is to efficiently utilize parallel processing, and the overhead that is involved. Some tasks simply can't be distributed across multiple cores. While it's nice for processor intensive programs to utilize all of your cores, most programs don't need to, and those extra cores allow you to run more programs at the same time without hindering each other's performance.[/citation]
You know I'm not disagreeing with you, but my point is still a decent spin on the fundamental issue that more cores do not translate to proportionate scaling. If you told me that to go from 2 cores to 4 cores would double performance simply because of multitasking efficiency then I would have absolutely no case, but we all know that this is not the case at all.

 

[fafner]

I'll take higher clock speed than m0ar c0r3s any day. what ever happened to Moore's Law?

 

[fafner]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Can someone tell me why the HELL we need 6 cores? I'm waiting for an answer. Really.[/citation]

We don't. It's the lazy chip makers way to faking progress.

 

[shagrathdex666]

only one thing for sure :
Encoding video times will pass out flying like real time video rendering
tshhh!

 

[hundredislandsboy]

I'm not as interested about 6 cores as much as I am about 12 threads. Video/Photo editing, music transcosing just got that much faster!

 

[aussiexboxfreak]

To those asking why we need more cores, any animator who has to wait for something to render is saying thank bloody god, we'd take a million cores if we could!

Unlike most programs, 3D render packages are the first to support extra cores, quite often before they are even released.

 

[Silmarunya]

Few apps and games can use two cores. Even fewer can use 4. I will never say hexacores are useless, but they'll be a niche product for years to come. Encoders, renderers (sp?) and heavy multitaskers will love it, but for most people and especially gamers, even a quad core is more than needed. The lower clock speed of a hexacore will be a disadvantage in fact...

 

[LordConrad]

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]god dam are some people stupid WHO USES ONE APPLICATION AT A TIME?[/citation]

1) Please stop your blasphemy.

2) I use one application at a time. I can't stand having multiple programs open at once, call it a pet peeve.

 

[KC8DKT]

All we can do is HOPE for the new cores to have more optimization and be at the same or faster clock speeds. That's the only way EVERY ONE would see a diff. More of the same cores would only help with graphics, rendering, and coding apps more or less.