How Windows 8 Will Deal With Tons of CPU Cores

Status
Not open for further replies.
nice upgrade from the old stuff. it'd be nice to see the more detailed view every time task manager starts up. in win 7 i have to click 'show process from all users' every time to bring up the detailed view. i haven't used the win 8 dp yet.
imo they look somewhat like sysinternals' (ms aquired them before win 7 came out) process monitor and process explorer.
 

kaisellgren

Distinguished
Nov 10, 2007
107
0
18,680
0
I hope they come up with a way to group similar processes. For example, I am running Chrome now and looking at my Win 7 task manager I am seeing 24 chrome.exe*32 processes. That's not convenient...
 

ronch79

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2010
181
0
18,680
0
Looks like AMD FX is just one year ahead of its time. Multi-threaded software is really the way to go moving forward. In this regard, it's good to see the FX outperforming the i7-2600K in some heavily-threaded apps, and Windows 8 putting more pressure on ISVs to make their apps use as many cores as there are stars in the sky.
 

icracked

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2011
41
0
18,530
0
in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one. :)
 

NightLight

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2004
551
0
18,990
1
[citation][nom]icracked[/nom]in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one.[/citation]
that's like saying you have a delorian time machine, but you're out of gasoline and it won't be invented any time soon.
 
[citation][nom]icracked[/nom]in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one.[/citation]

I don't follow your logic. Just because it is easier to get info from multiple cores does not change the performance of either.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,203
0
19,280
0
The title of this is misleading. It's not apparent, at least from this article, that Windows 8 deals with cores substantially differently (although I have they do), but that Task Manager displays them differently.

I was expecting an article on how Windows 8 differs in the way it distributes tasks with lots of cores, not how Task Manager displays them.
 

warmon6

Splendid
Jul 24, 2009
4,153
0
22,960
78
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]where can i get 160 logical cores?[/citation]

From what i could guess, it's probably intels 10 Core HT xeon cpu's and 8 of them on a server board.

10 cores*8=80*2(from HT)=160

[citation][nom]Marthian[/nom]That's a screenshot from Windows 8, stop lying to us.[/citation]

Nope. That's a windows 7 screen shot for sure unless MS done an update that my computer hasn't revived.

Here what i have of windows 8 and there no option that you can switch back to the original task manager look.

http://s760.photobucket.com/albums/xx241/warmon6/Windows%208%20dev%20preview/

 
G

Guest

Guest
The first screenshot has Physical Memory (total) 1048565 MB = 1.00 TeraByte of RAM !
 

saturnus

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
212
0
18,680
0
160 cores is far from the limit of Windows 8 will be able to handle. It's just an example. Windows 8 is optimized so that it can also be used with coming ARMv8 designs that can have up to 128 cores on a single die, and can link up to 8 of these dies for a total of 1024 logical cores. It's actually possible to link an unlimited number of ARMv8 dies but beyond 8 there will be a performance hit.
 

jhansonxi

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
1,262
0
19,280
0
Nifty but pointless. The processes and threads should be dynamically assigned to cores for load-balancing and thermal management in real-time. The core assignments should be constantly changing so it's just nerd eye-candy.

Manually assigning affinity has no real benefit unless you are intentionally trying to break something or have really poor scheduling.

While heavily loading a specific core may be useful for stress testing new hardware it's not likely to of benefit unless you're a hardware engineer.
 

eklipz330

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2008
2,992
0
20,790
1
[citation][nom]icracked[/nom]in all likely-hood, this should put bulldozer (the 8 core ones anyway) at about the level of the i7 2600k, honestly I really do think it is ahead of its time, and thats not just because I own one.[/citation]
ahead of its time and poorly executed. all OS's are optimized for multiple CPU's. WIN 8 probably won't perform any better when it comes to more cores.

and its power hungry. even less reason to get it
 

killerchickens

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
472
0
18,860
32
Windows 8 will probably make bulldozer faster because windows 7 doesn't take into account that the cores share parts and if the threads were distributed across the cores with shared resources properly it should go faster. For example if there is a 4 thread load each thread should use its own modular unit not put the 4 threads on the first 2 modular units. Then each core can use all the shared resources of the unit.
 

JOSHSKORN

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
2,333
0
19,790
1
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]where can i get 160 logical cores?[/citation]
Don't worry, you don't need that to play Crysis...or anything else for that matter, until, who knows, maybe 2050...or forever. That's just a made up guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS