I know I'm going to regret replying to a zoner, but...
In what case are more cores better if performance is the the same or worse than fewer cores?
Or put another way, a lower core count isnt't always an advantage over higher core count. The only reason one would argue against more cores is if one doesn't have more cores. And the point is completely moot if 8 cores do in fact out perform 4 cores, no? They are different architectures and different design choices just like Radeon and GeForce.
I know I'm going to regret replying to a zoner, but...
In what case are more cores better if performance is the the same or worse than fewer cores?
Nothing can be concluded until we see indy BD benchies, but what interests me personally is "pushing the envelope" CPUs. Cutting edge microprocessors that achieve new and previously unparalleled pure performance standards. In other words, what makes my software run faster and better than any other consumer CPU available anywhere. If BD is a valid SB LGA2011 competitor which happens to beat it to market by a few months, my credit card is burning a hole in my pocket and ready to send my hard earned money AMD-way. If BD is some "midrange" which fills in some blanks in the AMD lineup and competes with SB LGA1155, I'm BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORED!
I know i'm going to regret replying to an inteller, but....
In what case are fewer cores better if performance is the same or worse than more cores?
Expect the latter. The 8 core bd is positioned to compete with the 2600K. As I've said numberous times. With its 130w TDP it wont even come close to sandy bridge in the overall overclocking department
The speed of an application is determined by the speed of the slowest thread that the app uses, and further breaking down processes into multiple threads is not always possible/feasable/optimal - it also increases 'management' costs exponential.
So single thread/core performance should remain most important in the design of CPU's.
I don't understand cpu architectures, but compromising single thread performance in favor of more cores in the name of 'modularity', is not wise seen from a programmer.
Going from 32 nm to 22 nm technology (Ivy Bridge) is another step in potentially increasing single thread performance: less power consumption can allow higher single core speeds.
Just imagine that 22nm i.s.o. 32nm technology would allow me to increase core speed by 20%.
Expect the latter. The 8 core bd is positioned to compete with the 2600K. As I've said numberous times. With its 130w TDP it wont even come close to sandy bridge in the overall overclocking department
I expect the 8 core BD to beat the 2600K. Not by much, but still beat it. I also think it will be priced a little higher too. And that will be the case until s2011 comes out.
I also expect the 8 core BD to beat the 4 core s2011 CPUs. But once we get into the 6 and 8 core Intels, that is where Intel will retain the crown so to speak. But expect the prices to reflect that.
Competition is good. But the performance crown will always demand a kings ransom regardless of which company it is.
I expect the 8 core BD to beat the 2600K. Not by much, but still beat it. I also think it will be priced a little higher too. And that will be the case until s2011 comes out.
I also expect the 8 core BD to beat the 4 core s2011 CPUs. But once we get into the 6 and 8 core Intels, that is where Intel will retain the crown so to speak. But expect the prices to reflect that.
Competition is good. But the performance crown will always demand a kings ransom regardless of which company it is.
I don't expect any 4 core 2011 chips to be produced. Only 6 and 8
I don't expect any 4 core 2011 chips to be produced. Only 6 and 8
LOL, I have NFC on that, personally I don't get the dual-core xeon chip either, but presumably a market exists for it. I'm just saying I see an analogous extension of that market space, for whatever reason it exists, existing for quad-core LGA2011 sku's.What's the point tho idc? You can already get quad xeons for 1155
Welcome to the forums iSeeker!
And yes, absolutely agree with you, single-thread performance improvements is the tide that lifts all boats, be they single-threaded apps or multi-threaded apps.
There is a good reason why Niagara did not take any market (be it server, big iron, workstation, etc) by storm, same reason why bulldozer won't be as simple as 1,000 486-cores bundled together.
The sweet spot for parallelization is in the range of 4-8 threads. You can capture a moderately good portion of the thread-speedup curve by operating in this regime across a wide range of Amdahl limits. Its when you start walking the thread count into double digits that you hit that point of diminishing returns for all but the most trivial of parallelizable workloads.
Single-threaded architectures may well be bound by Pollack's Rule, but multi-threaded architectures are bound by Amdahl's Law with further implications of possible performance slowdowns as you add more threads as detailed by Almasi and Gottlieb.
That's not true and it's not what I'm saying.Or put another way, a lower core count isnt't always an advantage over higher core count. The only reason one would argue against more cores is if one doesn't have more cores. And the point is completely moot if 8 cores do in fact out perform 4 cores, no? They are different architectures and different design choices just like Radeon and GeForce.
I know i'm going to regret replying to an inteller, but....
In what case are fewer cores better if performance is the same or worse than more cores?
I'm not sure you understand the difference between multi threaded and single threaded applications.
Single threaded applications can only take advantage of a single CPU core. These programs usually include games, office apps, and some internet browsers.
Multi threaded applications can exploit several cores, but not an unlimited number of cores (in most cases). Some of these programs can only use two cores, for example.
So, for a large portion of the software that's out there, the fastest single threaded CPU is going to give the best performance. A good example of this is how a dual core i3 is faster than a six core Thuban in Starcraft 2.
That's why with AMD just throwing more and more cores onto their chips, it's not benefiting all scenarios equally. There are tons of applications that need better single threaded performance.
All things being equal, you'd be better off with a 4 core CPU than an 8 core CPU provided that they had the same overall thoroughput (i.e. a 4ghz 4 core CPU vs a 2ghz 8 core CPU of identical architecture).
I will agree if we only talking about one application running at any given time, but what if we run two apps simultaneously? 16 cores will be faster than 8 and what if we run 3 or four apps simultaneously etc.
AMD and Intel dont make CPUs for Desktop/Laptop use only
why do you keep saying that no matter how many times we tell you that the QX core 2 quads cpus do NOT have HT?Those QX cpu's I notice no one has. They are HT , so 8 logical cores.. thx gg and gl,
why do you keep saying that no matter how many times we tell you that the QX core 2 quads cpus do NOT have HT?
Oh really, this I did not know. Sorry if it came up before.. I thought the X meant HT on QX series. thanks