[core 2 quadro] - Computers

Search Tech-Forums - link takes you to our Forum's search page.

Note: The following is only a text archive!

To view the actual forum discussion, please visit our website at http://www.tech-forums.net

Pages:1

core 2 quadro
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: robina_80

ive just seen on toms hardware core 2 quadro whens it coming out and when is amd going to make a quad core cpu

Posted by: Alexandro

amd has a real problem because core 2(conroe) is better from 20 to 65% vice Athlon 64 FX 60.
AMD buy ATI because they want to do a CGPU.
The Intel trend is to do until 2010 a multi-procesor arhitecture ,up to 32 procesor on a die.

Posted by: weemanpow3

I cant wait

Posted by: KBlair

4 cores? Pfft. How about [url=http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/27/idf_fall_2006/]80[/url]?

Posted by: hillbillybob

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Alexandro [/i]
[B]amd has a real problem because core 2(conroe) is better from 20 to 65% vice Athlon 64 FX 60.
AMD buy ATI because they want to do a CGPU.
The Intel trend is to do until 2010 a multi-procesor arhitecture ,up to 32 procesor on a die. [/B][/QUOTE]

Do you have some resources to back that up?

I fail to see how 2 cores @ 32 bits could ever outperform 2 cores @ 64 bits. Lets see some URLs

Posted by: Sam Sys

I've read about this before, I think the clash between Intel and Amd will reach a climax, can't wait to see what's going to happen with the prices of high-end cpu's. With the though competition these days, times sure are good for us geeks.

Posted by: hillbillybob

Competition works so well for so long before it breeds diversity. Which in this case I think would be both good and bad. Reaching moore's law, diversity in chip architecure is good. but.....it means a shift in the paradigm of current programming. not good, unless there is backwards compatibility with older technologies.

Posted by: The Kid

I thought that they could only fit up to 4 cores on one processor do to physical size? And if they were going to have more cores, the size of the processor itself would increase in terms of volume. Hence, a processor would be like 4 inchs by 4 inchs if they were to fit that many cores on it? Because surely they can't just stack the cores do to heat problems?

Excuse my stupidity, but its what i've read in a few toms hardware articles, if im understanding them correctly.

Posted by: Apokalipse

they shrink the size of the cores from time to time

anyway, AMD's K8L Quad core should be very good. from what I've read, it'll not only compete with Core 2 Duo, but also Core 2 Quad; AND it will use less power

Posted by: hillbillybob

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Kid [/i]
[B]I thought that they could only fit up to 4 cores on one processor do to physical size? And if they were going to have more cores, the size of the processor itself would increase in terms of volume. Hence, a processor would be like 4 inchs by 4 inchs if they were to fit that many cores on it? Because surely they can't just stack the cores do to heat problems?

Excuse my stupidity, but its what i've read in a few toms hardware articles, if im understanding them correctly. [/B][/QUOTE]

^^You just paraphrased Moore's law of chip architecture. We will reach a point where you can fit the maximum amount per surface area. It happens, maybe they will change architectures. Besides, stupidity comes from doing something you know as wrong. NOT from asking questions

As for 4 cores....look at the PS3, if I remember right, they are fitting up to 8.

Posted by: w-plaza.com

:o nice.. i am also waiting for it!

Posted by: Meithan

But bear in mind that having N cores will not bring any noticeable gain unless programs and OSs are designed for multithreading. It seems the number of cores in processors is advancing faster than the programming industry's ability to take advantage of it.

Posted by: hillbillybob

Oh, I absolutly agree with you. As a programmer, you are sometimes isolated from technology on the chip. Sometimes this is in due to the OS not supporting the technology. Unfortunatly programmers are held back by the OS more than they are held back by any one language. C++/the .NET framework/Java all support multithreading.

Another issue to take into account is that not all programs require multithreading. My programs boil down to tools that people use. These tools are real simple, basic automation of tasks and so on. When I can access some 320,000 records across 19 databases on 3 servers (not a lot, I know, thats just the logical setup of the system) and do it in under 30 seconds, do I really need a multithreaded setup?