AMD strategy... What do you think

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: clarkey01
No, because dual core wont be a big seller for a good while.

a few more things I'll post on later

bs...I disagree....Dual core has mopre relevant use for many more now then it does 64bit...majority of users are not linux users but MS and thus we have no real stable platform at this time...However (gamers who can go to hell by the way ( I am starting to feel this more and more with dual core comments being useless just cause they cant see the benefits)) mnay users of PCs use them for digital processing and,multimedia and will feel this result out of the box....64bit was a rush and dul core would hav been more revolutionary and useful to mainstream....

I'm a pure gamer, but I find dual core interesting.



I know you were just aiming that at the flamers, though
I'd actually buy a dual core chip if I could reach decent frequencies from it.
I'm sure my system would feel much more responsive, even though I wouldn't notice "a boost in numbers" directly from the applications I use. I think it would be worth it, though. It may even usher me to do more things with my system than I did before.

You wouldn't have to worry about anti-virus software or other automated Windows "tools" hindering game performance.

Maybe I don't fully understand multithreading, but it seems to me it would be fairly easy to multithread a game. Just create a separate executable for sound... or physics... or network stuff for online games.

You need to synchronize those threads with the main thread. This is where it become interesting

So you'd need a 3rd thread to synchronize the main two?

 

[Calin]

No, you just need some - let's call them - synchronization points, where the main thread stays and wait for the other threads (or the other threads that finished work wait for the main thread). You are entering the realm of semaphores, common memory and so on.
Let's say you have a Windows program that defragment a hard drive. If you use a single thread, your program won't accept any other commands until the defragmentation is finished (no close, no minimize, no move, no redraw if necessary, no nothing). If you start the defragmentation as a different thread, the main program will accept the commands.
Now let's go to the semaphores. Your defrag program will write in some memory area its status. and will write a new status every half a second. The main thread (the program interface) will take that data and show it on screen - but he only takes the data when the defrag thread is not updating it. You need a semaphore showing RED when one of the processes have write access to the memory - and any other process that want to access it will wait for the semaphore to turn GREEN. The thread updates the data and when finished, turns the semaphore GREEN, letting other threads to access the memory.
Also, your defrag thread will look from time to time to a indicator that shows if he must finish its job (like when you close the program or when you want it to stop).

 

[superkdogg]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

I like what I've seen of the dualies so far. I'm salivating over AMD dual-core stuff. If the dual core chips can be overclocked like the singles, that's game-set-match for me.

Me too ! Except by the time the apps are multi-threaded, I will be at quad cpu (2x2) !! 4x F@H !!!!

Yep, that's what I'm talkin about. The move to dual core erases Intel's strenghts-clockspeed and multithreaded apps. With AMD taking a lesser step backward in clockspeed and adding true multi-CPU these K9 dogs will have quite a bite! However, I'm sure that they'll cost a ton because AMD has to know the value of them, right?

I also have to guess that OC's will be slightly lower (maybe much lower) because all the variables are doubled and the power supply will be that much more taxed. Don't count on going 2x3 GHz in '05 unless we're majorly lucky or AMD is seriously kickin' arse.