|
Title: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: DarkSign on April 21, 2008, 04:05:36 AM Guess there's no such thing as being too skinny or having too fast a processor.
Quote Shanghai, the 45nm core from AMD, is likely to debut late this year. It will be similar in many aspects to the currently-availabe B3 stepping of the Socket 1207 Opteron (Barcelona) shipping today. Unlike Barcelona however, which has its HyperTransport 3.0 clock generator fused off, Shangai should utilize HyperTransport 3.0 for inter-CPU communication. Also, AMD has a new "native six-core" Shanghai derivative in store, currently codenamed Istanbul. This processor is clearly targeted at Intel's recently announced six-core, 45nm Dunnington processor. AMD plans to utilize 2 Istanbul cores to create a 12-core CPU, where both cores will communicate with each other via HyperTransport 3.0. A quad-channel memory controller may also be possible. All new Shanghai CPUs should be backwards compatible with existing Socket 1207 motherboards. Shanghai is currently taped out and running Windows at AMD. Source: TechPowerup.com (http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?58134) Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: schild on April 21, 2008, 04:10:48 AM There's no such thing as AMD. I don't think they've noticed yet though.
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Strazos on April 22, 2008, 07:29:59 PM I'll believe it when I see it running and not exploding. :oh_i_see:
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Engels on April 22, 2008, 11:01:44 PM There's no such thing as AMD. I don't think they've noticed yet though. AMD may not be doing so great in the home use sector, or even the business sector, but aparently for high end computation of a scientific nature, like in mathematical clusters, their processors are valued above Intel processors due to the nature of their chips doing some floating point calculations in one step versus Intel's two steps. Or so I am told by some research engineers in the engineering dept I work for at the Uni of Washington. Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: schild on April 22, 2008, 11:07:02 PM There's no such thing as AMD. I don't think they've noticed yet though. in a highly specialized field blah blah blah amd is better than intelMy point exactly. ^_^ Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Dtrain on April 23, 2008, 03:36:55 AM Nehalem will be out in the later half of this year. The buzz around it sounds good (but doesn't it always with the "next big thing"?) It's boasting:
Improved performance as much as 30% over core 2 with cache and frequency improvements Multi-core (8+) Multi-threaded Self-overclocking (though they call it enhanced dynamic something or other.) Eliminating the need for north/southbridge and the potential for integration of GPUs on the CPU. I'm holding off building a new system until I see what all that means in practice. I have a feeling that it means AMD will need to learn to adapt quick, or actually start being completely eliminated from certain CPU market segments (rather than just figuratively eliminated, as they are now.) Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Engels on April 23, 2008, 07:07:44 AM There's no such thing as AMD. I don't think they've noticed yet though. in a highly specialized field blah blah blah amd is better than intelMy point exactly. ^_^ Except cluster computing isn't a 'highly specialized field', its sorta what computers were built for. You know, that whole 'computing' thing. Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Trippy on April 23, 2008, 07:14:34 AM "computing" !== "cluster computing"
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Ookii on April 23, 2008, 08:10:03 AM There's no such thing as AMD. I don't think they've noticed yet though. A couple of years ago they were kicking Intel's ass, before that Intel was kicking their ass. AMD will get back in the game soon enough. Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Engels on April 23, 2008, 08:23:10 AM "computing" !== "cluster computing" Fair enough, I'm not an expert in the field, but could you provide examples of cluster computing where computing isn't the main goal? And by cluster computing I'm refering to having multiple computers all working as a unit for a specific job. I've mostly heard of it in relation to weather modeling, and we have about 3 clusters here at work, all doing 'computing' of one sort or another. Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: stray on April 23, 2008, 09:06:58 AM What do you mean when you say "where computing is not the main goal"? All computers compute, y'know. :grin:
Sorry... I may be the stupid one, but I really am confused by the question. Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Engels on April 23, 2008, 09:32:43 AM Computing as in performing many calculations towards a specific goal. The term has changed its meaning over the years. It used to mean strictly counting and calculating, which is the way I'm using it here. I realise that in modern times it is more broadly understood as meaning any form of automation of an otherwise manual process, but I figured from context it would be understood that I meant it in the old fashioned sense of 'number crunching'.
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Jimbo on April 23, 2008, 09:59:44 AM So AMD motherboard and quad processors vs Intel motherboard and quad processor, how much of a diffrence if all the rest was the same (2 high end video cards, 8 MB ram, Vista 64, etc...)? Can the average gamer notice that much of a diffrence? Plus which one would be better for a ton of use, and which will be cheaper to upgrade?
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: TripleDES on April 23, 2008, 11:27:53 AM As long it's affordable, the more the merrier.
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Bstaz on April 23, 2008, 01:06:38 PM Looks like they choose Intel over AMD a lot http://www.top500.org/stats/list/30/procfam 354 of the top 500 Supercomputers are Intel CPU systems.. only 79 are AMD. Processor Family Power 61 Cray 2 Alpha 1 Intel IA-32 13 NEC 2 Sparc 1 Intel IA-64 21 Intel EM64T 320 AMD x86_64 79 Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Big Gulp on April 23, 2008, 02:15:56 PM Bitch, bitch, bitch.
If you want to create a magical supermodel girlfriend who teaches you how to be cool you'll need more than an old Commodore 64 and a bra on your head. Bring on the cores, says I! Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Dtrain on April 23, 2008, 03:04:44 PM You also need cut out pictures of desireable body parts from magazines and science (of the wierd variety.)
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Frax on April 23, 2008, 03:17:01 PM Computing as in performing many calculations towards a specific goal. The term has changed its meaning over the years. It used to mean strictly counting and calculating, which is the way I'm using it here. I realise that in modern times it is more broadly understood as meaning any form of automation of an otherwise manual process, but I figured from context it would be understood that I meant it in the old fashioned sense of 'number crunching'. A lot of clustered systems are nothing more than high availablity (read that as: hardware redundency), the second or third or fourth box is often nothing more than a hot running system to accept the database app or whatever if the primary box fails. These clusters have nothing to do with efficiency at all but maintaining availablity. You are thinking more of parallel computing, I think? Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Dtrain on April 23, 2008, 03:31:21 PM Meanwhile everything looks just great for AMD: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-processor-troubles,5222.html
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Trippy on April 23, 2008, 04:46:38 PM "computing" !== "cluster computing" Fair enough, I'm not an expert in the field, but could you provide examples of cluster computing where computing isn't the main goal? And by cluster computing I'm refering to having multiple computers all working as a unit for a specific job. I've mostly heard of it in relation to weather modeling, and we have about 3 clusters here at work, all doing 'computing' of one sort or another.Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Engels on April 23, 2008, 05:17:57 PM Your logic is flawed. "Cluster computing" is a subset of "computing". You are assuming that because computers "compute" they can also "cluster compute". That does not follow. I think you're reading a bit too much into what I said. Caveats of how not all clusters are built for number crunching (see Frax's post above) and that Intel does well in this field as well, I'm merely sharing the information passed on to me by engineers who build their own clusters for mathematical computation, and how in their specific arenas, the AMD 64 bit processors have been favored. Price point and the speedy deployment of both 65 and 45 nm processors by Intel have probably hurt AMD in the last few years, but I suspect that AMD isn't going the way of the dodo quite yet. Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Trippy on April 23, 2008, 05:22:16 PM This is what you said:
Quote Except cluster computing isn't a 'highly specialized field', its sorta what computers were built for. You know, that whole 'computing' thing. Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Engels on April 23, 2008, 05:24:20 PM Yes, loosely stated, computers were build for computing, clusters being currently the way we maximise processor power for that task. I can see where you got that, but you're adhering to the letter of the law a bit too strongly bro.
Title: Re: 12 processors in 1 = overkill maybe? Post by: Strazos on April 23, 2008, 06:51:49 PM All I know is that when I built this rig in 2002, in floating point tests, my 2700+ would smoke equivalent new P4's.
|