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

Page 3 - 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.
Well there are two fronts AMD can improve on the desktop front and they are faster and smarter cache to deal with the need to have better IPC compared to the Intel i series, and ondie GPU / APU.

I think AMD will really improve on the latter ... given the sneak peek video we recently saw.

Remember once you push a little past the 3 Ghz range even with a dual core CPU, the biggest improvement you can make is really about your graphics from a gaming standpoint.

You can stick a $1000 CPU in your PC and a $200 Graphics card, and I'll get more FPS in any game with a $100 CPU and a $400 Graphics card.

Prove me wrong ... without overclocing ... just to make it easier??

 
They should make it easy & hard. Just like selling HD & LED. All those who didn't do their homework bought HD Ready, helping to bring the price down for everyone wanting cheap Full HD, & those who bought LED backlight who are helping to bring prices down for everyone who wants LED TV.

So if those who want gaming PC's & do their homework, can get the assistance from everyone who bought something just to brag & have but didn't get because they didn't even bother to find out. It's a win-win situation where serious gamers get what they want cheaper, & everyone who just wanted got to help them bring prices down.

So invent names like NVIDIA, but make available both simplified benchmarks & detailed benchmarks so you can read & learn, or go with the hype!
 
[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]
I understand why people say this, but I'm sorry to say software on multiple cores doesn't really work that way. This is like saying you want to get to a destination faster, so instead of driving one car at 60 mph, you will take 2 cars that each go 60 mph. That just doesn't make sense: You cannot divide the process of of taking one person between 2 cars and expect to get there any faster. There is no shortcut to fool single core software into running faster by using multiple cores just as there is no shortcut by taking one person in multiple cars.
 
All the cores in the world won't make up for the fact that programmers don't take advantage of them. Hell, we've had 64-bit processors for about a decade and some people still cling to 32-bit.

We're entering a trend were developers and users no longer embrace new technology, but rather rationalize why their old technology is still sufficient and shouldn't be changed "any time soon".
 
You people commenting don't seem to understand the CPU. More cores does = FASTER CHIP. The software just needs to be coded to use the cores. You gamers talk about faster core speed...and it isn't necessary to make the cores any faster. Well engineered architectures can have the same effect as higher clock speeds. Imagine if you will...shortening the road rather than speeding up the car. Same principle here.

Future games will be/are already being written for more than two cores. So just relax. AMD and Intel both know what they are doing. :)
 
[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]

Why the thumb-downs for this comment. As far as performance, this is just FACT.

The level of AMD (and ATI!) fanboyism on this site is beginning to concern me.
 
The day the normal home software/games start to take serious advantage of that many cores (even 4 cores are rarely used in games today) i will definatly consider a zillion-core monter, until that happens i rather have a efficient quad with higher clock for my game/software needs. Currently owning an i7 and are happy about it overclocked at 4ghz
 
33% increase in core = 50% increase in throughput
1 module has about 180% of the performance a dual core
By simple calculation, the single core performance of bulldozer should gain at least 25% more than phenom ii.
 
hello AMD , i do not need that much core at the moment , quad or hexa was enough for me rite now , but i hope to have a faster , higher performance with very low TDP cores .
 
This is a server article people. Learn to read.

Nobody is talking about playing Crysis here. Please get a clue before posting.
Click to expand...

nice...
i'm not too much a server guy, more a 'enhanced workstation' type, lol.
but i respect your candor in the matter...
 
ahhhh, don't hate programmers for not having highly multi-threaded software, it's not the easiest thing to do you know

personally i would love to have a 2P 24 core workstation to write extremely parallel code (so don't be hating on the high number of cores)
 
Speed is not everything. Silicon can only handle so much frequency before it breaks down. Heat is one of the issues among other things...

More cores are better today and in the future applications. If you look around you; even highways are expanding to more roads/lanes. If the programmers can keep up with technology, they could implement their programs to work with multiple cores. Intel is the first one to make dual process to ordinary consumers with their virtual Processor (fooling a program that there are two processors). 64 bit system is been around for many years and programmers even can't keep up with drivers alone.

Imagine an 8 core Intel Atom @ 2 GHz beat a 4 GHz dual CPU in processing...
 
Speed is not everything. Silicon can only handle so much frequency before it breaks down. Heat is one of the issues among other things...

More cores are better today and in the future applications. If you look around you; even highways are expanding to more roads/lanes. If the programmers can keep up with technology, they could implement their programs to work with multiple cores. Intel is the first one to make dual process to ordinary consumers with their virtual Processor (fooling a program that there are two processors). 64 bit system is been around for many years and programmers even can't keep up with drivers alone.

Imagine an 8 core Intel Atom @ 2 GHz beat a 4 GHz dual CPU in processing...
 
Core efficiency/clock also matters alot...

[citation][nom]reprotected[/nom]No I do not want more cores, I want Stream Processing![/citation]

You already have it... You realize that steam processing is limited in what it can do?
 
I would bet that a 32nm AMD chip with 6 cores at 3gH will outperform an Intel chip with the same specs (same cache size, same number of transistors) consistently. They really just make better chips. And at least they don't seem to be interested in their client's souls/kidney/firstborns. They have all the technical capability, but they still provide value, not decadence. A+ from the practical computing crowd AMD.
 
sure i want more cores but still waiting for price and power footprint to drop a little more. with current cpus, performance is quite adequate for my needs.
 
I don't know, More cores have their uses even for a home user. I forgot which games I use to play that you could set up servers for. I think One was Freelancer, and then some of the older Unreal Tournament games. One of the issues back in the old single core days was, if you used a pc to run a server for the games, you couldn't play the game on those PC's, especially if you were running modded or community patches on them when you had a lot of players logged in.

Now, throw in also running a Teamspeak/Ventrilo/etc voice coms server on top of all that. Now with the fact that some games are actually starting to use 3 and 4 cores on a processor, you can see where problems come in? Not everyone has the money to throw at an extra PC to run as a dedicated game/voice coms server.

With that point of view I can see where having a 6-12 core cpu in a home system could be beneficial. I've known too many hardcore gamers, and I've even been one before after all. What I'd like best would be a 6 or 8 core CPU, with independent turbo core or auto overclocked of unused cores, with a good base clock speed. The X6 1090T is close to that, but still needs improvement on the core control thing. And the 4 and 6 core i7's are great, but I'm not a fan of hyperthreading, because it doesn't always work the same way a real core does.
 


the only game that i have that actually loads my machine enough where i don't want any other server running is BF:BC2, anything else i could host the server and play on it (as well as having a teamspeak server), this is with a 3GHz Phenom II x4
 
Can't wait for bulldozer. It will put AMD on top again (hopefully). I'm pulling for Bulldozer to do well. It better beat out a non-overclock i7 920/930. I don't side with either side, Intel or AMD, but I like performance and for the past 4-5 years, AMD has yet to release something that can take on Intel's performance. I don't care about the upgrade path they're trying to stay with. Nowadays, it's not worth it for me to upgrade just the CPU anymore. I'll upgrade GPU for now until PCI 3.0 comes out, but if I upgrade my CPU, I might as well get a new system that has USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s and uses faster memory.

I don't like how AMD comes out with a new revision of their CPUs almost every month. I'm not gonna go out and buy the new revision just because it uses 3 less watts for power. Plus, it makes us guys who own the first revisions feel cheated. Why can't they release something right the first time. I mean, Intel releases new revisions too, but they do it like once a year.

Also, why do their mobile cpus run so hot & use so much power? Intel has them beat pretty bad in this department too. I've replaced about 10 motherboards this past year due to over heating. They tend to last a little longer if you have a cooling pad underneath the laptop.

Go ahead and give me a thumbs down if you don't like what I just said here. I've been fixing computers for the past 15 years, and I gotta say, I like AMD, but for my clients that want performance I always tell them to go with Intel. If they want mobility, go with Intel. If their on a budget, go with AMD. For people who don't care, I tell them go with AMD because it will be cheaper.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom