Intel Not Going to Wait for Software to Catch Up

[mindless728]

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.

most consumers only need an athlon II x2 240 TBH, anything more than that is a waste for the majority of people

here on Tom's hardware, an i5-750 or PII x4 955 is plenty, there are few people who actually need the 8 threads of an i7 (or 12 for the 980X)

agreed that AMD doesn't perform on a pure performance level, though its plenty for most people (and can be a tad cheaper, but again, thats price/performance)

though as a developer, hardware companies pushing more performance gets me to want to make use of the hardware, so i don't mind it at all

 

[daggs]

[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 wi
okie, so I'm looking for a mainframe that will support 3 users working at the same time (multiseat config), can you supply me with a cpu of that kind, matching mb and 8 gb of ram at about 1.3k? thing it, that it is way expensive to buy. notice that at 900$ I can get the new amd opteron with 8 cores and the latest xeon quad from intel. not sure I can get that one at the same price, no to mention that I'm not sure if linux supports that cpu.

 

[chefboyeb]

Thumbs up! I'm all for innovation and progress... So keep doing your thing intel, while the rest of us play catchup...

 

[jsc]

mindless, kingnoob:
You are right. The vast majority of computer users are simply appliance users. A $600 PC from a Big Box store is all they will ever need. (And you pretty much do not see them posting here on a regular basis.)

I have no problems with that. It helps drive down the cost of hardware for the rest of us. But we are enthusiasts. And if you weren't, you wouldn't be posting here.

 

[randomizer]

Why cant nvidia have this mindset? cause we all want gpgpus dont we? oh wait I forgot... NO WE DONT! Good call Intel

Well NVIDIA do have this mindset IMO. They are looking into the future and seeing GPGPU more widespread than it is now. Whether this future eventuates is anyone's guess, but it will certainly expand in niche markets such as render farms. Intel are seeing multi-core processors in the future instead. As far as consumer-grade hardware goes this is more likely to take off than GPGPU.

If only AMD could compete on the same level. I'll keep on hoping

AMD have a 12-core processor already. So they are ahead of Intel in this ideology, although not always in actual performance.

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

Well since all languages are eventually translated into Assembly it really doesn't matter what you use as far as making multithreading possible. However, certain languages are easier. Note that some applications simply don't need to be threaded because the workload is either small (no or negligible performance benefit) or not conducive to being paralleled (requires too much serial execution, making parallelism too much effort for the potential benefits). Some things are inherently capable of being paralleled, such as ray tracing, where almost all computation can be done in threads that are completely independent of each other. Where threads depend on the output of other threads it becomes more messy.

 

[kokin]

[citation][nom]mindless728[/nom]most consumers only need an athlon II x2 240 TBH, anything more than that is a waste for the majority of peoplehere on Tom's hardware, an i5-750 or PII x4 955 is plenty, there are few people who actually need the 8 threads of an i7 (or 12 for the 980X)agreed that AMD doesn't perform on a pure performance level, though its plenty for most people (and can be a tad cheaper, but again, thats price/performance)though as a developer, hardware companies pushing more performance gets me to want to make use of the hardware, so i don't mind it at all[/citation]
Even I feel like my PhII 955 is already overkill for the gaming/apps that I do/use. Though my guess is that at least some of the people who buy parts that they don't need now will eventually need it in the future.

 

[amstech]

The AM3 Phenom II CPU's are right there with intel's best, if not better due to just as good overclock headroom and very cool temps.

I run my 720 X3 @ 3.6Ghz, chip runs at 25C idle, never over 38C load.
Anyone who still think intel has the best CPU market and best bang for your buck has overlooked the new Phenom II's.

 

[hundredislandsboy]

This is great news. I do video editing and I will take as manu cores as Intel can throw at me!

If I had the cash I would use a dual Xeon system for editing. encoding but Intel is on the right track with this idea because it will make the Xeons and i7s drop lower in price.

 

[Guest]

If Intel is so pro-active, how come their chipsets don't already support USB 3.0 and SATA 6GB/s?

 

[Ehsan w]

+1 for intel on this one, but why eont they release new cpu's for laptops then?

 

[IFLATLINEI]

Most software barely uses two cores. Some games use four. But now were getting news of six and eight core processors. I understand Intels point but software is now two generations behind atleast.

 

[hundredislandsboy]

Most software barely uses two cores. Some games use four. But now were getting news of six and eight core processors. I understand Intels point but software is now two generations behind atleast.

For gamers maybe the need for cores isn't there yet but for power users like professional (and amateur) 3d artists, users who need rendering poweri, digital photography, editing, large servers, this is great news because it's another step taken towards 6-core mainstream computing.

 

[m-manla]

I agree with Intel. Software developers will like to drag out things. Like 64bit processing. That is why Microsoft is considering to program the OS to route programs to specific cores.

 

[cadder]

Though my guess is that at least some of the people who buy parts that they don't need now will eventually need it in the future.

Yes, most definitely.
My previous desktop machine was overpowered when I got it, but after a few years, upgrading to the next OS version, adding digital camera software, etc. and it became very slow. The more hardware you start with, the longer you can wait until you have to upgrade.

 

[Shadow703793]

[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 do realize that the PPC arch is a RISC arch. I'd like to see how much software is available for that (discounting open Source binaries,etc)...

And NO, it CAN'T play Crysis you noob.

 

[pcworm]

[citation][nom]lauxenburg[/nom]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.[/citation]

some probloms can naturally be coded in parallel, some cant be..
imagine this (x = 5 + 6 + 7 + 10) which needs three additions
parallel :
y = 5 + 6 in parallel to z = 7 + 10 (using two cores)
x = y + z (using one of the cores)
you can see that a problom that needed 3 steps, is done in two steps using a dual core

the first thing you notice is that u just had a 33% speedup (1 - t(parallel)/t(sequential))and also the problom can not be further parallelized, no matter how many cores u have, it can only (partially) benefit from a max of two cores. this problom happens when a calculation needs the result af another one to go on for example

m = sqrt(abs(some calculation))
the square root can not be parallelized with absolute value function
(in case of those that can be parallelized)there are many ways to code in parallel (for use in multi-core/thread/processor)systems, you can code downright from win/posix threads or u can use solutions like OpenMP
the lower level u use in your codeing, the harder and more buggy it is, bit the faster your code might run, also u have full control on every thing, but developement time goes through the roof
most software can be parallelized if they are designed in parallel from day 1, but porting a software into the parallel arena is another long story

 

[pcworm]

sorry, wrong quote

 

[hundredislandsboy]

some probloms can naturally be coded in parallel, some cant be..
imagine this (x = 5 + 6 + 7 + 10) which needs three additions
parallel :
y = 5 + 6 in parallel to z = 7 + 10 (using two cores)
x = y + z (using one of the cores)
you can see that a problom that needed 3 steps, is done in two steps using a dual core

the first thing you notice is that u just had a 33% speedup (1 - t(parallel)/t(sequential))and also the problom can not be further parallelized, no matter how many cores u have, it can only (partially) benefit from a max of two cores. this problom happens when a calculation needs the result af another one to go on for example

m = sqrt(abs(some calculation))
the square root can not be parallelized with absolute value function
(in case of those that can be parallelized)there are many ways to code in parallel (for use in multi-core/thread/processor)systems, you can code downright from win/posix threads or u can use solutions like OpenMP
the lower level u use in your codeing, the harder and more buggy it is, bit the faster your code might run, also u have full control on every thing, but developement time goes through the roof
most software can be parallelized if they are designed in parallel from day 1, but porting a software into the parallel arena is another long story

Your parallel formula paralyzes, makes my dual-core brain (right and left lobe) switch to single core right before BSDO'ing.

 

[mouettus]

I absolutely loooove technological advancement and this makes good to hear... but am I still the only one using an E6600 @ stock speeds with 2gb of ram?? I do some modern gaming, but mostly digital photography processing and video encoding. kudos to intel for this marvelous CPU that still makes me happy after 3 years or so!!

 

[phlog]

When performance intensive software drives demand for faster hardware, software must be efficient and optimized. I have a feeling that when hardware manufacturers like Intel are too far ahead of the software curve, applications will grow like the analogous goldfish to fill their environments. This will likely be caused by developers who can afford to be lazy and cut corners in terms of computer resources. Because of this, I think the push/pull between software and hardware is a good thing.

On the other hand, with the growing gap between software and hardware, developers will likely have more leeway to be creative with their software.

Interesting topic.