Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / 12 core processors!!! That's ridiculous.

Author
Message
SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 9th May 2008 01:00 Edited at: 9th May 2008 01:08
Wow... check this out.

LINK - http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/145608/amd_jumps_to_12core_chip_skips_8core_chip_plans.html
Quote: "
AMD plans to release processors with 12 cores.The Wall Street Journal (5/8, B8, Clark) reports that "Advanced MicroDevices Inc. (AMD) plans to produce chips with six electronic brains, andthen 12, to continue a longtime game of high-tech leapfrog with rival IntelCorp." While "[h]oping to rebound from some recent product delays, AMD hasbeen racing Intel to squeeze the core circuitry of more microprocessorsonto each piece of silicon." The company "recently began selling a finalversion of a four-processor chip, code named Barcelona, which requiredslight changes to fix a defect that was discovered after the product wasannounced in September." The chipmaker "plans to follow up late this yearwith another version, code named Shanghai, that benefits from more-advancedmanufacturing to improve calculating speed and reduce energy consumption."AMD "shares jumped more than 12 percent on Tuesday on investoroptimism that the beleaguered chipmaker could soon announce itslong-awaited strategy to revamp manufacturing to cut costs," Reuters (5/8,Martell) notes. "It has been a little more than a year ago now that AMDChief Executive Hector Ruiz announced that the company would be retoolingits manufacturing strategy to cut costs and ease cash flow problems."IDG (5/7, Shah) added that AMD's proposed 12-core chip "changes itsproduct road map and kills earlier plans to release 8-core chips." Theprocessor, Magny-Cours, "will be targeted at servers and is due for releasein the first half of 2010," according to the company. The processor "willinclude 12M bytes of L3 cache and support DDR3 RAM."Meanwhile, Market Watch (5/8, Pimentel) points out, AMD "will holdits annual meeting Thursday amid ongoing concerns about the chip giant'sability to compete with rival Intel Corp. -- and speculation that it mightbe considering a breakup." "


Wasn't 4 enough? I thought most programs couldn't even use all 4 processors of quad core machines? Why do they even need this much power? I'm guessing crysis 2 and 3 will be 12 core capable?

Discuss!

Dude232
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Jan 2008
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2008 02:58
wow thats huge!! well thing is i couldnt understand much of it (dont know computers that much ;D)

El Goorf
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Sep 2006
Location: Uni: Manchester, Home: Dunstable
Posted: 9th May 2008 03:12
"wasnt 4 enough".. well, AMD couldnt even get the quad core right so i'd love to see them get 12 cores working without going completely bankrupt...

</disillusioned AMD fanboy>

http://notmybase.com
All my base are not belong to anyone.
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 9th May 2008 04:05
That will probably be for other things. Not gaming, because it would be pretty useless.

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 9th May 2008 04:11
Not if the game had molecular programming.

Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th May 2008 04:20
Holy crap...12?!?!?!? Why that'd be just perfect for video editing/ special effects makin' geeks like me....lol.


Original image by BigAdd
Mr Makealotofsmoke
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2006
Location: BillTown (Well Aust)
Posted: 9th May 2008 04:25
lol @ El Goorf
its funny cause its true


Free Webhosting = http://unlhosting.info --Send support ticket to get ad free
BiggAdd
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: != null
Posted: 9th May 2008 05:29
Nice sig Yodaman. You don't have to say the original was mine, This new sig is yours now.

Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 9th May 2008 11:49
I dunno, I remember reading something about a year ago which said Intel reckon they will have 30 processor PCs as the norm by about 2012. They said that basically it was much more likely to have a load of processors running at say 4ghz each than a machine with one or two cores at 20ghz. Or something like that.

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Current fave quote : "She was like a candle in the wind.... unreliable...."
Sasuke
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Dec 2005
Location: Milton Keynes UK
Posted: 9th May 2008 12:39 Edited at: 9th May 2008 12:40
This is nothing, recently Intel research team has done and astounding 80 core processor, that blow AMD's 12 away. The chip is capable of producing 1 trillion floating-point operations per second, WOW.

Heres one of many articles:
http://www.news.com/Intel-shows-off-80-core-processor/2100-1006_3-6158181.html

A dream is a fantasy, if you achieve that fantasy it was never a dream to begin with.
Mr Makealotofsmoke
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2006
Location: BillTown (Well Aust)
Posted: 9th May 2008 12:57
well its said that in the future our cores will be carbon tubes or something like that, because of the heat problem


Free Webhosting = http://unlhosting.info --Send support ticket to get ad free
SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 9th May 2008 13:05
Woah! Good thing intels making the 80 core processor. I like their processors much better.

Mr Makealotofsmoke
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2006
Location: BillTown (Well Aust)
Posted: 9th May 2008 13:27
"woot i can run cod4 80 times at once....woot"


Free Webhosting = http://unlhosting.info --Send support ticket to get ad free
SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 9th May 2008 13:41
It would add a new difficulty level, especially if each game was at a different spot in the campaign.

Aertic
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Jul 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 9th May 2008 15:17
WOW!!!
Just what I needed to Do over effing sized texture's
Jke.
This is also quite a crazy thing though.

puppyofkosh
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jan 2007
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2008 16:07
Wow, that is intense. I guess I'd take Intel's 80 over AMD's puny 12 core...I have a single core right now...

The Kurgan
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th May 2008
Location: At the Beginning
Posted: 9th May 2008 16:22
Honestly? I think IBM is on to something more with their Power line of processors. Because Intel has apparently ran into a wall with what they can do with a single core, they insist on putting dozens of cores together, to the nth level. Meanwhile, the power 6 chip blows a lot of their stuff away, without the mammoth energy/cooling concerns.

"It's better to burn out, than to fade away!" -- The Kurgan
Mr Makealotofsmoke
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2006
Location: BillTown (Well Aust)
Posted: 9th May 2008 16:40
i also have a single core. 3.8GHz FTW


Free Webhosting = http://unlhosting.info --Send support ticket to get ad free
5Louiz
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Nov 2006
Location: Brasil
Posted: 9th May 2008 16:52
When I heard about quad core processors, I thought "who the hell needs four processors"? I changed my mind when I faced some needs. Basic computer users are easily satisfied by a 1.7Ghz processor and 512Mb of RAM and a crappy video card - my experience or six years.

I have seen an 80 core processor on YouTube. I did not look much into it, so I do not know if it is real.

Few applications take advantage of 2 or 4 processors. Bizarre solutions target other publics. Normal users do not need 2Gb of RAM, for example, but I heard that some computing systems can be equipped with sixteen Gb of RAM or more. Some severs may find that too low. I do not know.

BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 9th May 2008 17:54
Quote: "Wasn't 4 enough? I thought most programs couldn't even use all 4 processors of quad core machines? Why do they even need this much power? "


Bill Gates said in the '80s that 640KB of RAM would be enough for anyone's needs - ever.

You should watch the Intel interview with Lee Bamber if you want to know how it all hangs together. Unfortunately the sound on Paul Johnston's convention presentation was too quiet, he explained all about granular processes that expand to fit the processors available, fascinating stuff.
Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2008 18:46
Our computer needs grow. Look at Vistas system requirements vs XPs (to be honest, I feel Vista takes too much). Heard that Windows 7 will need a quadcore processor...

In the future we may need a 12 core processor for the OS itself. Hopefully not, but you never know.

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 9th May 2008 18:50 Edited at: 9th May 2008 18:54
Quote: "Nice sig Yodaman. You don't have to say the original was mine, This new sig is yours now. "


Thank you BigAdd! But it was inspired by the original one you made for me, which totally rocks. I still can't quite figure out how to make text that glossy, but I did what I could.
Quote: "
Bill Gates said in the '80s that 640KB of RAM would be enough for anyone's needs - ever."


Bill Gates was a liar...I am seriously considering switching to Mac someday.


Original image by BigAdd
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 9th May 2008 18:51
Quote: "In the future we may need a 12 core processor for the OS itself."


At which point, anyone with any sense would ditch the new OS. Wait, I live in a country of computer incompetent idiots. I'm screwed.


I fail at life. No, really.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 9th May 2008 19:11 Edited at: 9th May 2008 19:13
Quote: "Our computer needs grow. Look at Vistas system requirements vs XPs (to be honest, I feel Vista takes too much). Heard that Windows 7 will need a quadcore processor...

In the future we may need a 12 core processor for the OS itself. Hopefully not, but you never know."


While I agree it's disappointing that the operating system takes up more resources than past ones, I think it's for the better.

If we wanted to save on resource power, we'd all still be using windows 95.

Newer operating systems take up a lot of resources, and for a pretty big benefit too. While a lot of people don't see the benefit in vista, I won't be going back to xp except to play old games like AOE once I get my some more harddrive space.

I hardly think it's worth it to downgrade just to stay backwards compatible. I'm much more for moving forward than for stagnating.

If you take a look at ubuntu or fedora core 8, both those systems don't run well on anything less than a p4 very well, and for good reason. They're very powerful operating systems.

Windows 7 is going to be an awesome upgrade if they stick to what they're promising. I've heard they'll be using virtual machines to run programs independent of each other. That's a lot of power that's being given to a program.

Imagine running Linux and windows programs side by side, that's the sort of thing that could potentially be possible, but it will take huge amounts of resources to do it well.

The true benefit, of course, will be able to run the same program on nearly any pc. We'll no longer have to worry about porting games, they'll just work as is from any pc.

Of course, I doubt this will work effectively right away, but it is something coming in the future of computers.


Hurray for teh logd!
Samoz83
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd May 2003
Location: Stealing Ians tea from his moon base
Posted: 9th May 2008 19:54
Quote: "Bill Gates said in the '80s that 640KB of RAM would be enough for anyone's needs - ever.""

I didn't think he actually said you didn't need more ever, i thought people misconstrued what he said

www.firelightstudio.co.uk
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 9th May 2008 20:41
Sounds like it'll suck up a lot of electricity.

SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 9th May 2008 22:31
Yeah, 80 processors would take alot of power. You'd redouble the cost of the computer in no time.

All this talk is making my single core 2.3ish ghz processor feel really wimpy...

Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 9th May 2008 23:08
Quote: "Bill Gates said in the '80s that 640KB of RAM would be enough for anyone's needs - ever."


That is a myth.

Quote: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time... I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."


Source


Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 10th May 2008 01:08
Quote: "If we wanted to save on resource power, we'd all still be using windows 95."


True. But there is a limit for how much resources that can be said being used for bringing more power, and that is just wasted on unneccessary features.

Quote: "If you take a look at ubuntu or fedora core 8, both those systems don't run well on anything less than a p4 very well, and for good reason. They're very powerful operating systems."


True, but none of them are as demaning as Vista (at last Ubuntu, cannot comment on Fedora Core 8), and I think Ubuntu is ever better, and in some ways more advanced, then Vista (PolicyKit).

Anyway, my point is that powerful OS does not need to be superdemanding. If the features is coded in a good way and the OS is just not overfilled with features no one will ever use, you can have a extremely advanced OS that do not require THAT much. Sure, it will most likely demand over 256 mb ram, propobly recommended with at last 512 mb ram, but at last not as much as 2 gb. It is always good with a OS that is optimized for multicore processors, but it should not be a demand.

Quote: "Windows 7 is going to be an awesome upgrade if they stick to what they're promising. I've heard they'll be using virtual machines to run programs independent of each other. That's a lot of power that's being given to a program."


Cool, yes, but do not forget that VMs are a bit slower .

Quote: "Imagine running Linux and windows programs side by side, that's the sort of thing that could potentially be possible, but it will take huge amounts of resources to do it well."


You can, take a look at "andLinux" . Many KDE apps can work through it. Have not tested it, though, but it sound good. Due to Windows closed source model, the best alternative for Linux is Wine.

Anyway, for that to work Windows will need to have a internal Linux kernel that it use to run the Linux apps (it would have to run in a virtualized layer).

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 10th May 2008 01:09
But now we are completely off topic. Anyway, to return to the subject, how do you think that we can use all that power?

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 10th May 2008 01:26
Crytek will find a way to suck it out of us!

bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th May 2008 01:29
Quote: "You can, take a look at "andLinux" . Many KDE apps can work through it. Have not tested it, though, but it sound good. Due to Windows closed source model, the best alternative for Linux is Wine."


Yes, I've heard of it, but think of it as being integrated into windows, and no need for compatibility issues, since it'd be running in it's own vm, rather than through an api.

Of course, there will be speed loss, at the same time, it'll be a much more advanced system.

Obviously, I don't see windows ever supporting linux programs natively like that, but it'd be nice to run windows 95 games in windows 7 with absolutely no compatibility issues


Hurray for teh logd!
Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 10th May 2008 01:32
Yeah, I think it is more directed to older Windows versions.

And about that speedloss, it was more of a way for me to tell that there would be pros and cons, and not just pros, of that system .

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 10th May 2008 01:43
If I had that much power, I would attempt to use it to create the best games, movies and music EVER CREATED. I'd also invest in a nice limo and buy a lot of caviar....too bad I'm allergic to fish!


Original image by BigAdd
Mr Makealotofsmoke
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2006
Location: BillTown (Well Aust)
Posted: 10th May 2008 03:03
lol i wouldnt how many watts our PSU's will be.

and i dont think i couldnt handle says Nvidia 10600GT...just doesnt sound right

(also y am i on post mod again?)


Free Webhosting = http://unlhosting.info --Send support ticket to get ad free
greenlig
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posted: 10th May 2008 06:57
I think having all those cores could see the return of 3D software rendering in a big way. At least, I'd like to see that Elegant code that doesn't sit on any API is almost the hottest thing ever. Ever.

Mike Abrash FTW.

Greenlig

Blender3D - GIMP - WINXP - DBPro
Keo C
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Posted: 10th May 2008 07:12
Quote: "(also y am i on post mod again?)"

Read the AUP?


Image made by the overworked Biggadd.
PAGAN_old
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Jan 2006
Location: Capital of the Evil Empire
Posted: 10th May 2008 08:03 Edited at: 10th May 2008 08:04
12 core cpu?






















WHYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!???????

dont hate people who rip you off,cheat and get away with it, learn from them
Mr Makealotofsmoke
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Dec 2006
Location: BillTown (Well Aust)
Posted: 10th May 2008 08:11
why not?


Free Webhosting = http://unlhosting.info --Send support ticket to get ad free
Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 10th May 2008 08:34
POWER !!!

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 10th May 2008 08:37
UNLIMITED POWER!!!

RIP Max-Tuesday, November 2 2007
You will be dearly missed.
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 10th May 2008 11:12
Quote: "(also y am i on post mod again?)"


Because you were trolling in another thread with "I posted b4 this got locked." We don't tolerate that kind of behaviour.


Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 10th May 2008 15:05
UNLIMITED POWER!!!

+ 1

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
Keo C
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Posted: 10th May 2008 16:08
I could go in a childish fashion, but 12 cores, interesting.


Image made by the overworked Biggadd.
Yodaman Jer
User Banned
Posted: 10th May 2008 17:01
Maybe it's the beginning to getting a lightning-fast time machine!!
Or just a real fast CPU. One or the other.


Original image by BigAdd
SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 10th May 2008 18:48
Hopefully a real fast cpu = fast machine!

Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 10th May 2008 19:16 Edited at: 10th May 2008 19:17
Real fast CPU = Real fast computer = Faster then light = travel in time = is found in 1958 = future change!

Anyone knows which would be the most powerful: a 12 core processor or an optic processor?

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 10th May 2008 19:40
Optical processor, of course. However, that's a few decades away at this point


Hurray for teh logd!
SunnyKatt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 10th May 2008 22:02
ooo. Never heard of an optical processor before.

Mr Z
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2007
Location:
Posted: 10th May 2008 22:36 Edited at: 10th May 2008 22:37
They are using light instead of electricity, and due to two reasons they will become vastly superior in speed then any processor today.

Reasons:

1. Dure to the Super Position principle (think that was the name) you can have it handle several, do not know of any limit, signals at the same time (the will not affect each others). No need of several cores with them, they can handle all those different things with one core at the same time.

2. Light is WAY faster on the scale we are talking about.


Optical processors are still nothing compared to quantom processors (that use quantom physics to calculate in ways not even optic processors can do), but they are so advanced we may not be able to use them for a few hundred years.

So optical processors will be a huge revolution when they come.

Darkness, you haunt me. If I give in, I would be an monster beyond imagining. Light, you guide me. Thanks to you, I see past the nothingness. Life, I choose to live in the light.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-20 08:40:04
Your offset time is: 2024-11-20 08:40:04