AMD: You Want More Cores? OK, You've Got It!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
More cores is good for some people.

For me, processors that are good for gaming (generally quad-cores) are for me.

Or, maybe games will start being able to utilize 8-12 cores; then I'd get one.
 
Home apps don't even need more than a single core. The lack of proper rendering optimizations (let's take Flash as an example), slow mechanic hard drives and internet latency/bandwidth are the real bottlenecks.

Workstation and Server software have always focused improving performance on MP platforms but people in general won't run Oracle on their desktops, right?

Games are the sole exception nowadays as their developers have stuggled to make things threaded since Intel's HyperThreading was released. Hopefully with DX12 improvements Windows will get at least a little more friendly with MP.
 
This is not a good thing. If one could have twice the clock rate, then we would be guaranteed to solve any computer problem twice as fast. With twice as many cores, some problems might be solved twice as fast, and others will take just as long to solve - with most being somewhere in between.

More cores are simply a last-ditch desperate way to get an improvement in performance because it is no longer possible to improve clock speeds, not something that is preferable. There's no sense fooling ourselves with illusions.
 
The biggest limitation on clock speed is Quantum Mechanics. Right now a good processor is built on a 32nm process, and because of Quantum Mechanics they can't be built any smaller than 1nm. Electrons would pass right through the transistor walls as if they weren't even there.

As a result, AMD and Intel are both looking into other means to increase performance, Diamond-based semiconductors being one of them and quantum computing the other.

Those aren't Intel and AMD techs though, those are mainly based in research labs at universities or other companies. Quite frankly, these two technologies are going to ensure that both Intel and AMD get reset to underdog status in a few years (read-5-20).

Both technologies increase speed beyond regular silicon, diamond because you can push the chip harder and stay stable and QC because hell, you are using atoms to compute.
 
AMD needs to be spending their R&D money on redesigning their architecture to compete with intel's i7's. We need another '64' cpu from them. I'm tired of my only choice in high-end cpus being from intel. Don't get me wrong, I love my i7-920 to death, but I did not like the price I had to pay to get it.

I still have hope for AMD though. Maybe eventually they will retake the crown.
 
Remember this article is in relationship to the server world, where more cores are used much more efficiently ... in high demand for distributed workloads.

This has nothing to do with desktops.



 
[citation][nom]reynod[/nom]Remember this article is in relationship to the server world, where more cores are used much more efficiently ... in high demand for distributed workloads.This has nothing to do with desktops.[/citation]

Which is unfortunate.
 
ha! home computing barely uses 2 cores, 4 is a pipe dream.

besides, this has nothing to do with home computing so easy on the qq
 
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]You can add cores till they are looked at as we do gpus today but performance per core really needs to improve and at the hardware level there needs to be in place a mechanism to fool an app or os to think that it is on one or several but fewer than there really is while the work load is shared over several cores at once. Why is simple most apps ect max out 1-4 threads/cores and do not take advantage of this. I would like to see a dual socket platform being aimed for consumer use that is much more friendly.[/citation]
That is a thoughtful comment sir. I agree.
 
Um, guys, this is talking about server CPUs, not home desktop CPUs.
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]performance per core really needs to improve and at the hardware level there needs to be in place a mechanism to fool an app or os to think that it is on one or several but fewer than there really is while the work load is shared over several cores at once.[/citation]AMD says that their core efficiency will improve with Bulldozer. Though to be honest, I have no clue how much it would be and they haven't released any benchmarks yet. The current strategy where the CPU will clock higher on less threads is a lot easier than to split one process between two cores. It's possible to do this, but it would be a mess.

[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]I would like to see a dual socket platform being aimed for consumer use that is much more friendly.[/citation]For consumer usage, adding more core per CPU is better. Really, graphics cards aren't getting any advantages by going past 3-4 cores yet. You also need to put in stuff to help processors intercommunicate as well.
 
what i want to see is a higher clock speed at a lower power consumption, so maybe we can actually use high clocked CPU's without needing a super cooler mounted on top of our computer.
 
[citation][nom]photog10[/nom]meh..AMD has long been out of the picture..after the i7 took off, AMD just can't stay in the game..As much as I would love an AMD option, i7 is the right choice. If you look at benchmarks, there's no product that will stand up to the i7..it's a shame really. WAKE UP AMD!!![/citation]

I'm sorry but a tiny increase in FPS does not even come close to spending 700$ dollars on a processor. Staying AMD thank you very much. Quad core for 95$ that does what I need it to is great.
 
As has been stated numerous times in the past, till software and/or a hardware solution is created to fully utilize all cores for parallel processing, ill pass on expensive multi-cores and stick with quad core processors. My I5 750 is more than enough for me with its four cores.
 
this article referred to servers and business computing.... so why are the comments from people with mainstream computers?? We get it people... you play games and games dont need more cores because they arent optimized for them. well number 1.. if a company makes a cpu with more cores and raises the bar then we will see games and other mainstream applications start using them. and number 2... its not like AMD is only going to make 16 core processors.. they will have a cpu for the scientist and the gamer.
 
[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]what i want to see is a higher clock speed at a lower power consumption, so maybe we can actually use high clocked CPU's without needing a super cooler mounted on top of our computer.[/citation]
we see that everyday... it used to be called 45nm.. now its called 32nm
 
wow there are alot of stupid people, here spend R&D to compete with i7, there new zacatae 18W Netbook chip out performs a Core i5-750M!, bulldozer will wipe the core i7 off the map, comparing differenct bencjhmarks (cant remember where they did this) but the Bulldozer will beat the core i7, but of course people dont remember the Phenom II was NOT to compete with Core series CPUs, this was to compete with Core 2Quads, AMD just spent a generation redesigning and lets face it AMD sells a **** load of CPUs for cheap, I have an AMD CPU and it does everything i need it to do, im not spending 700 on a CPU that cant do much feaster

*Post edited by moderator* Cool it on the language.
 
Depends on what needs to be done. I had an Atom N270 work on Freehal@home (just for fun), it was better at it than my e8500, e7400, or q6600. Makes me wonder if they had an atom with as many cores as is possible, what that could do.
 
[citation][nom]K2N hater[/nom]Home apps don't even need more than a single core. The lack of proper rendering optimizations (let's take Flash as an example), slow mechanic hard drives and internet latency/bandwidth are the real bottlenecks.Workstation and Server software have always focused improving performance on MP platforms but people in general won't run Oracle on their desktops, right?Games are the sole exception nowadays as their developers have stuggled to make things threaded since Intel's HyperThreading was released. Hopefully with DX12 improvements Windows will get at least a little more friendly with MP.[/citation] that is true games only run on quad cores
 
OK, I'll put off my plans to buy a six core. I'll keep the 4 core for another year.

I like better more cores instead of faster cpus for two reasons. First higher Ghz waste more energy, which is bad for the environment and raises the energy bill. And second and most important, I do research in parallel computing programming, and more cores means job security 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom