Status
Not open for further replies.

Emperus

Splendid
This makes sense.. Playing catch up or even waiting for the software to catch up would also allow competition to catch up to them.. Besides staying ahead will always help system builders to build a literally future proof setup.. There exists only a spot of bother wherein the hardware might reach a saturation point beyond which the technology might mostly under perform due the lack of resources to utilize it efficiently..
 

mlopinto2k1

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,433
0
19,280
0
Totally makes sense. Especially when everyone thinks this company or that company is holding down progression. They won't look like corporate monopolizers trying to make money by holding back technology. It will force software companies to compete to utilize the hardware they are being given.
 

tpi2007

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2006
475
0
18,810
6
[citation][nom]emperus[/nom]This makes sense.. Playing catch up or even waiting for the software to catch up would also allow competition to catch up to them.. Besides staying ahead will always help system builders to build a literally future proof setup.. There exists only a spot of bother wherein the hardware might reach a saturation point beyond which the technology might mostly under perform due the lack of resources to utilize it efficiently..[/citation]

I was also thinking that with such fast processors and graphics cards we have today, to really make use of them to the fullest, we really need to start having decently priced SSD's, not only to store the OS, but everything else too. It's probably the major bottleneck in any given system. Even an old Pentium III at 1GHz benefits immensely if you give it a modern 7200rpm Hard drive with more data density per platter, so modern systems defintely need SSD's to bring the best in them. Storage systems have always lagged behind.
 

Parsian

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2007
774
0
18,980
0
NOW that is an attitude i like to see more especially when it comes to Gaming... I hope developers are developing new stuff rather than sell the same old thing over and over and over and over again and again and again...

 

spoofedpacket

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2009
201
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Intel learned their lesson...so did ATI... Nvidia is learning it now.[/citation]

Oh god. Can you think about anything other than video cards?
 

andrewcutter

Distinguished
Sep 10, 2009
179
0
18,690
1
i tihnk impossible is a word tossed around by ppl who dont want to know the power they have to change....(read this some where)

sooner or later some one will come and write a language that can thread anything i think...

PS: i dont know much abt programming
 

digiex

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2009
834
0
18,990
1
Intel should develop its moblin software or some linux derivative in parallel also, in that way M$ will be forced to catch up fast or else it will eat dust.
 

gekko668

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
243
0
18,680
0
I'm not a programmer but can someone explain to me why is it taking so long for programmers to create software that can can take advantage of multi thread. Is it because of cost? is it hard to write code for it?

thanks
 

lauxenburg

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
540
0
19,010
5
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]If only AMD could compete on the same level. I'll keep on hoping[/citation]

AMD is competing on the same level. No one gives them attention though. They currently have 12 core Opertons out and 16 core versions with smaller fabs are due this summer.
 

mindless728

Splendid
Jul 15, 2008
4,074
0
22,960
89
@AndrewCutter, some algorithms have actually been proven to be impossible to thread

@gekko668, it is very hard to write thread safe code and as i said above, some code is impossible to thread

personally, this is one of the things i work on in my spare time as i see it being one of the parts of programming that needs a lot of work right now

EDIT: this is what i go to for school, computer science
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ummm... Who care about intel when IBM is doing oh so much more!!! Every hear of Power7, guys???? It's an 8 core, 4 thread monster with edram L3 cache that makes it an absolute revolution in computing. Add in it's 256 way large SMP system design (model 795) and it's super computing use (wikipedia: "blue waters") and IBM clearly leads. And yes, it can play crysis!! Power powers all the game consoles and a version of Power7 will power the next gen MS and Sony consoles. Intel? Intel? Who cares!
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
1,590
75
19,870
3
[citation][nom]PowerGuy[/nom]Ummm... Who care about intel when IBM is doing oh so much more!!! Every hear of Power7, guys???? It's an 8 core, 4 thread monster with edram L3 cache that makes it an absolute revolution in computing. Add in it's 256 way large SMP system design (model 795) and it's super computing use (wikipedia: "blue waters") and IBM clearly leads. And yes, it can play crysis!! Power powers all the game consoles and a version of Power7 will power the next gen MS and Sony consoles. Intel? Intel? Who cares![/citation]


You're smoking crack if you think M$ is going to make the mistake of using an underpowered in-order processor for the next xbox. Developers want to spend time making games, not compliling software builds over and over and over again to make the code run fast enough.
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
1,143
0
19,280
0
It can't possible go the other way around. Would you be expecting someone to create a program that was multi-threaded when there were no dual core CPU's available? No way. Software is always behind hardware.
 

Drag0nR1der

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2007
245
0
18,680
0
lets face it, there will always be software requirements that can utilise the hardware as its created... 3D visualisation / cinema use for example, will always benefit from faster and faster render times.. we have in absolutely no way reached real time rednering for cinema graphics, or realtime raytracing... and thats just one area of high use computer software, I'm sure there are others in the science and medical professions.
 

kingnoobe

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2008
774
0
18,980
0
Amd doesn't compete with intel on a performance level *except maybe servers not sure about those*, but on a performance/price level. I have nothing against AMD, and if they did manage to bring out something superior I would buy it if I needed it anyways.

And johnny really it doesn't come at an expense to most consumers. A core i7 920 would do most people fine, they don't need the super elite extreme cash hog cpu. And most don't even really need 920.

It helps more consumers then it hurts, as new things come out, old things price usually drop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY