Haswell Core Count

Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by MisterMac, May 8, 2012.

  1. AtenRa

    AtenRa Lifer

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,236
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    It is more than a year since SB and AVX are available in the market. Could you tell me how many desktop applications can take advantage of AVX ???

    I dont say we dont need AVX and AVX2 but we have Multithreaded Desktop CPUs (Pentium 4 HT) from 2002, a decade have past and there are people here that say we dont need more than 4 cores in Desktop. Im sorry but that is pathetic, programs are lagging behind hardware advances more and more the past few years.

    If AVX will take a decade to be mainstream then AVX2 on Haswell is not something you people should get your hopes up and running.
     
  2. LOL_Wut_Axel

    LOL_Wut_Axel Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,309
    Likes Received:
    1
    Interesting that you say that, given it was you that started this.

    Let me quote you again:

    It was you arguing in this thread that those three things is what made it worth it. I debunked it using the 3820 as the prime example because double the memory bandwidth doesn't increase performance in real-world desktop programs against the 2600K/3770K and neither does having 0.5MB more of L3 cache/core (BTW, bad argument if you were saying more L3 cache/core for the 3930K because it has the same 2MB L3 cache/core as the 3770K). I was just correcting you in that it's the extra cores that make it worth it, not the other three things.
     
  3. Magic Carpet

    Magic Carpet Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    4
    Can't disagree with that.
     
  4. frozentundra123456

    frozentundra123456 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    9,568
    Likes Received:
    280
     
  5. ShintaiDK

    ShintaiDK Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    20,395
    Likes Received:
    128
    More cores for what? Idling? Not to mention the cost of creating 6-8 cores designs just to please a tiny crowd. As it is today you can get a 6 core Thuban or Westmere/SB-E. Bulldozer and i7 Lynnfield/SB/IB just gives you the illusion of 8 threads.
     
    #55 ShintaiDK, May 8, 2012
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  6. pelov

    pelov Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that's precisely the reason why we won't get 6 core chips. 4 cores and 4 cores / 8 threads is enough and more than enough. Graphics is generally the most intensive task most people do nowadays so it makes more sense to address that then add more threads/cores if it's unnecessary.
     
  7. IntelUser2000

    IntelUser2000 Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,232
    Likes Received:
    73
    I guess we overestimated how much floating point extensions have on consumer applications. Look for example how poor Bulldozer and AMD CPUs do in general do compared to Intel ones, but then when we look at workstations, the situation completely reverses: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5553/the-xeon-e52600-dual-sandybridge-for-servers/12

    Ignoring the Xeon E5 results, the AMD chips perform significantly better on floating point intensive HPC applications. In HPC, AVX and FMA are all very important performance features.

    http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2011/06/13/haswell-new-instruction-descriptions-now-available/

    Isn't that interesting?
     
    #57 IntelUser2000, May 8, 2012
    Last edited: May 8, 2012
  8. pelov

    pelov Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that's proven to be true if you look at current AVX implementation and will continue into AVX2 with video editing being the major, and perhaps only, widely used application(s) to take advantage. AVX2 being used for gaming is a pipe dream but in HPC it makes far more sense.

    I posted this in the other thread, but it bears repeating here; Bulldozer's AVX performance is actually pretty good so long as all threads are tasked. In HPC and video editing this is exactly what happens

    [​IMG]

    Compared to non-AVX in the same benchmark

    [​IMG]

    BD actually handles AVX better than Intel does. Still, though, it only has 4 FPUs so though it fares better than Intel's 4 FPUs with respect to AVX, it isn't allowed to stretch its legs and use that advantage because it's still only got 4 :/ Anyway, most FP-related tasks a user comes across that require good performance are games and we've got a co-processor for that.
     
  9. Hulk

    Hulk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    15

    Depends on how you define "needing."

    Is speeding up video transcoding "needing?"
    Is transcoding a video while playing a game "needing?"

    Perhaps most people don't even need a dual core?
     
  10. Edrick

    Edrick Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    16
    I stand corrected. I completely forgot the 3930K does not have the extra L3$ per core that the 3960 and 3820 has. My apologies.
     
  11. Edrick

    Edrick Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    16
    I agree with the new instruction set. It generally does require a re-compile with possibly some code changes. But generally this is nothing too difficult and since most large software houses release new versions yearly/bi-yearly, we can usually expect a turnaround of 2 years or less (in most cases). But sometimes it wont even make a difference, so they dont bother.

    I disagree with the modular build point. I do not know of many applications that will scale to X number of cores without some sort of code change or re-compile. I know it is possible (to a certain degree), but very complex and expensive to do. And with Intel only upping the core values every 4-5 years, why bother?
     
  12. 2is

    2is Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    64
    I would absolutely love a Ferrari at an affordable price... Fact is that 8 core processors are not main stream, they are niche/enthusiast markets and you will pay enthusiast prices until they become mainstream. And please don't even mention bulldozer. 8 half-cores don't count.
     
  13. BenchPress

    BenchPress Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can? Plenty.
    Will? Few.

    It's a matter of cost vs. gain. AVX1 is an abomination. It only doubles the width of floating-point SIMD instructions, doesn't offer anything to facilitate SPMD processing (which vectors this wide begs for), nor did Intel provide any increase in cache bandwidth to sustain a higher throughput. So it's hard to program and the speedup is low. Hence few developers have bothered to use AVX1.

    AVX2 is completely different. It offers 256-bit SIMD integer instructions, fused multiply-add, gather support, and vector-vector shift. That's finally everything we need for auto-vectorization of loops with independent iterations (SPMD programming model). It's straightforward to use, and will make many generic 32-bit code loops run eight times faster!
     
  14. BenchPress

    BenchPress Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    No we don't. The GTX 680 is pathetic at general-purpose computing.

    Games are severely limited by the lack of throughput computing power offered by today's CPUs, and clearly even the latest GPU is rubbish for GPGPU.

    Hence AVX2 will revolutionize gaming. It brings us SPMD throughput computing, without the limitations the GPU runs into. The future is homogeneous computing, not heterogeneous computing.
     
  15. dinker99

    dinker99 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    I work with Maxon C4D, as this has no GPU acceleration I need more cores
     
  16. Mr. Pedantic

    Mr. Pedantic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except by telling me not to expect so much, you're essentially telling me it's unreasonable for me to want it to be mainstream sooner.
     
  17. greenhawk

    greenhawk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0

    While I would generally agree with the bubble statement, I find it sillier still that if there is such a large price difference between local and US prices, why not mail order? been doing that for years. Far easier than going off about local prices.
     
  18. greenhawk

    greenhawk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    had to laugh at that. it follows very closly with the marketing that AMD gives as to why they pushed for more cores :)
     
  19. greenhawk

    greenhawk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0

    I would say people that upgrade for 20% performance increase are not really caring about value for money, they want the latest and greatest and so money takes a back seat.

    People some times wake up to this cycle and skip every second, just so they can afford better gear every second release.
     
  20. greenhawk

    greenhawk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0

    There is a need for performance, and intel deliver options for it.

    Just because there is no competition at that level means intel can charge what ever they want for it.

    might as well be going off at AMD for being bad competition, but still be one of those people that do not buy there products to help fund then to be a good competition against intel.
     
  21. greenhawk

    greenhawk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, but the desire can head in the direction of being labeled the same as the people that have not grown up who complain, or the ones that go down the path of "it is too expencive to buy, I'll just steal it instead".

    It is all marketing exists for, convice people that they have a need for something they actually could have lived without. Said desire then either gets them to buy the item (and they get a rush of acheivement) or they do something silly about not being able to afford it.

    Personally, once you get to the point of

    a) acknowledging the qualities of something
    b) knowing you do not need it

    your life gets soo much better as you have far less to get your blood pressure up about.
     
  22. greenhawk

    greenhawk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    proberly head towards the older one of how hyper threading counts as real processors

    :p
     
  23. Lonbjerg

    Lonbjerg Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    4,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are barking up the wrong tree.
    Import taxes and VAT = you should talk to the EU politicians.
    So you calling other people dumb...talk about irony!
     
  24. greenhawk

    greenhawk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    possibly, but they are thinking in the now.

    I was one of the people saying dual was better than single back when dual required two cpu's, the rest came around to my thinking.

    That being said, I have not seen a huge number of things that benifited my daily tasks to make quad massivly better over dual until recently (still running a q6600, so it took a long time).

    It seems the best thing since the q6600 has been turbo mode which disables unneeded cores. Not sure what feature will be next but I do not have the gut feeling it will be going to 6 cores for the masses (like the local wall mart / ect will find it any easier to get mom and pop to but a quad over a dual).
     
  25. 2is

    2is Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    64
    Well that's your interpretation of what I said, which is fine. Fact is that it isn't mainstream and that's because it doesn't need to be. Anyone that "needs" that much power can have it, it'll just cost them. Anyone that wants it is in the same boat. It's not unreasonable for intel to want to make a larger profit on their top teir products. It's not unreasonable to want it, but it's also not unreasonable for Intel to not give it to you, yet.