Multi core fad??

[sylvez]

Increasing the frequency linearly increases power consumption exponentially.
Increasing the number of cores linearly increases power consumption linearly.

Therefore, if you want to save power, single-core is fundamentally flawed. Theoretically, you could construct a multi-core processor that did the same amount of work in the same amount of time but at a lower frequency and thus using less power (down to a certain, useless cutoff).

I disagree.

In fact, we could rename this thread IBM vs Intel+AMD. Go ahead, google IBM's power6 chip. over 2 times the processing speed of the current generation, no extra cores required, no exponential power increase. Now I know this is not a PC chip, but it does go to show there are ways to increase the speed of a processor greatly without simply adding more cores. There are several technologies in the works out there that have the potential to further increase CPU speed (think clockless CPU's and quantum CPU's). All in all, CPU top-out-speed is a long way off.

I'd also like to point out the multithread/multitasking irony: One of the main virtues of multiple cores is being able to multitask efficiently. At the same time, if 2 or 4 multiple cores becomes the standard, then all software will start to be written with 2 or 4 active threads. Now you're about as incapable of multitasking as the guy running a single core that's 2X as fast as one of your duals.

But wait! You say, "maybe they won't write all software with multiple threads" Then congradulations, you now have now paid for an extra core that you don't even use all of the time. What a waste.

I want my high speed single core dream back. If I really need another core, I'll wait till they come as an add in card.

u seem to know ur stuff and i will assume u do know that the above mentioned technologies have exorbitant costs that are far beyond wat a typical consumer is willing to pay (or companies willing to implement that technology IF it is already available)

i would think that dual core is the way to go, given that the current silicon technology is nearing its end of its life(too much crosstalk, current leak as the nm gets smaller) . until the newer technologies are cheap enough (or even, exist) to implement.

 

[simplyput]

u seem to know ur stuff and i will assume u do know that the above mentioned technologies have exorbitant costs that are far beyond wat a typical consumer is willing to pay (or companies willing to implement that technology IF it is already available)

i would think that dual core is the way to go, given that the current silicon technology is nearing its end of its life(too much crosstalk, current leak as the nm gets smaller) . until the newer technologies are cheap enough (or even, exist) to implement.

Actually IBM hasn't even released their power6 chips as they are still undergoing final testing. I do assume that the price to performance ratio will be competitive (at least if IBM wants to stay in buisness). But once again, the technologies would need to be adapted to PC's before super high performance single cores could be evaluated as a home user solution.

What you say about the other technologies price is true, however. Even if they did exist, no software or OS would run on them. You'd have to create all the software from scratch. So ya, HUGE costs there.

But I do gotta say, dual core ain't cheap either. If you look at the price of any X2 processor and compare it to it's single core bretheren (using the L2 cache size and actual clock speeds instead of the "4000+" type number) you only see a savings of about 50 bucks by going X2.

If the world is going multicore, I would actually prefer to see mobos that handle 1-4 single cores. You get the advantange of not being forced into dual core up front, and you'd have redundancy if one of the CPU's failed.

 

[psyno]

Increasing the frequency linearly increases power consumption exponentially.
Increasing the number of cores linearly increases power consumption linearly.

Therefore, if you want to save power, single-core is fundamentally flawed. Theoretically, you could construct a multi-core processor that did the same amount of work in the same amount of time but at a lower frequency and thus using less power (down to a certain, useless cutoff).

I disagree.

In fact, we could rename this thread IBM vs Intel+AMD. Go ahead, google IBM's power6 chip. over 2 times the processing speed of the current generation, no extra cores required, no exponential power increase.Two sentences before you began quoting my post...

First, a core in a multi-core system can do everything a core in a single-core system can do and vice versa.

You've changed too many variables and I've already covered this. The "current generation" was a 130 nm fab, and recently (4 months ago now?) shrunk to 90 nm. Small wonder that you can pull out a 65 nm processor and say "look here, this is faster and doesn't take as much power." You have to consider that theoretically, a multi-core processor based on the Power6 could now be constructed that would be clocked lower, use even less power, and still do the same amount of work. As I said, almost any architectural changes you can throw at a single core don't mean anything, as you could throw them at multi-core as well.

 

[hashv2f16]

dont think quad cores or whatever-the-word-is-for-things-of-8 core processors will mean performance. it's all marketing hype initially eg... "HAHA MY PROCESSORS GOT QUAD CORES WHICH MEANS ITS 4 TIMES FASTER THAN YOUR A64 FX!"

software programmers may actually optimize their code for unlimited multiple threads, or whatever the CPU can handle many years after the multi-core chips have been released. so an 8 or 16-way threaded program would be really sweet by say late 2008

 

[simplyput]

You have to consider that theoretically, a multi-core processor based on the Power6 could now be constructed that would be clocked lower, use even less power, and still do the same amount of work. As I said, almost any architectural changes you can throw at a single core don't mean anything, as you could throw them at multi-core as well.

Well the point of the power6 chip is to not clock lower. If you're not going to go that fast, you don't need the technlogy. The whole existance of multicore is due to the fact that neither intel or AMD made the technology breakthrough to signifigantly higher speeds.

The problem with trying to make these power6 processors dual core is that the technology involved makes them big, even in just single core form. A quad power6 wouldn't leave room on your motherboard for anything else. I'm sure they'll eventually shrink it down to a small enough size that quad core will be possible, but whos to say by then there won't be other technologies that will further increase clock speed and processor size?

I do like the idea of multicore, simply because it avoids system hangs. At the same time, I'd rather have 2 single cores in order to get the benefit. If one of the cores breaks in a multicore CPU, you're out almost 2X as much as if one of the single cores in a 2 CPU system did.

 

[hergieburbur]

Two seperate chips will be better than 1 dual core chip if they are clocked the same. However, its usually more expensive and involves a larger mobo.

A big advantage of multicores, is that you can run multiple threads at once while still haveing one chip, which is great for SFF and laptops.

 

[Lacostiade]

I think multicore will create headaches for game designers, since every time a cpu with more cores is released, they have to be reprogrammed.The best thing to do is place an option in the game options determinig the number of threads instructions are divided to.But the future of gaming depends on quad core.

 

[hergieburbur]

Actually, if they are multi threaded, you don't have to dictate how many cores there are. You can run multi-threaded apps on single core. The threads will take advantage of the available cores according to how they are scheduled by the OS. So once games go multi-threaded, they don't have to be reprogrammed again. There is a small efficiency hit to running multi-threaded apps on lesser cores.

 

[HoldenMcGroin]

I think multicore will create headaches for game designers, since every time a cpu with more cores is released, they have to be reprogrammed.The best thing to do is place an option in the game options determinig the number of threads instructions are divided to.But the future of gaming depends on quad core.

I may be wrong on this one, so I will phrase it as a question: isn't it the OS, not the gaming app that determines how much each core is used? Because if that is true, the onus is on the OS software developers to take advantage of multicores, not game developers.

Back to the original subject for my two cents worth, NO, multicore is not a fad. Reason being: $$. It is harder to develop a new processor than it is to make a pre-existing processor right next to another, and only design a bridge, and you get better performance (or potential) that you can sell for more $$$. Instead of spending millions of dollars redesigning the wheel, wouldn't it make more sense to just use more wheels?

 

[mohit9206]

dual cores are common today while quad cores still dont have the mainstream popularity of dual cores because quad cores are still fairly expensive especially those from intel. i guess quad cores will need another 2 years atleast to match dual cores in terms of sales

 

[godzapostle]

dual cores are common today while quad cores still dont have the mainstream popularity of dual cores because quad cores are still fairly expensive especially those from intel. i guess quad cores will need another 2 years atleast to match dual cores in terms of sales

notsureifsrs