I want a true quad-core processor
- Thread starter Arcadio
- Start date
On what basis do you want a "true" quad core? If your application workload doesn't benefit from a cache that's shared across all 4 cores, I'm not sure you'll see a benefit (especially when the per-core IPC may be higher from a "fake" quad core).
secretanchitman
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2001
- 9,352
- 21
- 91
true quad core? intels current quad cores are just 2xc2d's slapped together to make a quad core...but they are totally fine for what you need.
Well that make sense; I was afraid you'd say "gaming".:disgust:
Any of the current Intel quads are good. If you're look to go quad on a budget, MicroCenter has been unloading Q6600's for $200, but it's in store only.
If you have cash to spend, you could grab a Q9650. Cost wise, that's to two ends of the quad Intel spectrum right now.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/B...owulf_book/node28.html
Following the standard convention of partitioning parallel processing into compute bound versus node-to-node data/instruct bound tasks, would you say your parallelized workload is course-grained or fine-grained?
If it is course-grained then going with a MCM like Intel's Quad will have no disadvantages over a monothlithic architecture like AMD's Quad with shared L3 cache.
If it is fine-grained (Tp ~ Ti, see Problem Granularity and Synchronicity in the link) then it becomes a question of going with AMD's monolithic die (and having reduced interprocessor communication cycletime) but lower computation speed per unit time (Ts and Tp will be lower) or go with Intel quad and have very good processor times (low Ts and Tp) but suffer the higher interprocessor communication cycletime (Tip and Tis).
That's some nice advice there Idontcare. Now, what's the budget ? I suppose stability is really important so overclocking is out of the question ?
Just thinking here, but a qx9650 is 1000$, how much does a dualsocket mobo, 2 xeons and 4gb of fbdimms cost ?
Just thinking here, but a qx9650 is 1000$, how much does a dualsocket mobo, 2 xeons and 4gb of fbdimms cost ?
My work is course-grained too, which is why I favor Intel MCM quads over monolithic for now.
The higher clockspeed combined with IPC for my calculations favor reducing the serial and parallel processing times at the slight added increase in interprocessor communication times.
Your course-grained codes will likely benefit in similiar fashion.
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,560
- 2
- 0
There is no such thing as a "true quad-core", because there is no "false quad-core". A CPU is either quad-core or not. I suppose you could consider a dual-core CPU to be a "false quad-core", because it doesn't have 4 cores in one package, but that perfectly illustrates the fallacy of using the term "true" to describe Intel's current quad-core CPUs.
Heh heh, that's funny because its true!
The technicalities of the debate can legitimately devolve into a question of the definition of "core" as well. Especially when there are shared resources of any kind.
I'd also argue that Cyrix chips were not a full core
Gawd-dam was the performance of my Cyrix P150+ not worth the 486 chip it replaced. I'd say my Cyrix chip was like a 3/4 core at best, definitely a "false single-core, Pentium 150MHz equivalent" :laugh:
- Jun 5, 2007
- 5,637
- 24
- 81
I say "true" quad-core because I've heard the statement that current quad-cores are just two dual-core processors joined together, which doesn't sound so impressive.
BTW, I'm a programmer but I know a few things about hardware. However, I'm not familiar with all the new hardware that's available out there and what's the best for me. I'm planning to build a pc with the latest technology at a reasonably price (around $400 or less for the CPU). I want something that will run fast and will not become obsolete too quickly (if that is possible in this field). I will do a lot of encoding and CPU intensive tasks, although those tasks might no be multi-threaded. However, I will be doing a lot of multitasking.
Do you think a dual-core would be a better choice? Should I wait a couple of months? I really want to take advantage of new technological developments...
I'm in your shoes, I do programming now for my business and I run lots of single-threaded tasks in parallel in the background so multitasking occurs a lot.
While you won't be sorry with a modern day dual-core, your usage habits will most likely benefit from a quad-core.
Intel Quad cores are like that. The AMD quad core chips are actually what you are considering a "true" quad core. Even so, the Intel chips are faster with almost every application at the moment, so if you want a quadcore chip now, you should probably go that route.
Wow someone fell for the AMD hype. "true quad-core" lol. Do you really think Intel would sell something branded a quad-core if it wasn't really a quad-core? Who really cares if it's two duals strapped together, they made it work and they made it work good.
batmang
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2003
- 3,020
- 1
- 81
The only " True " quad core is the AMD Phenom. The Intel Q6600 is a quad core but does not have 4 seperate cores. They bonded two e6600's together. That doesn't mean its any worse or better than the Phenom. In fact, its faster than any of the current Phenom's in most benchmarks.
Ya I don't understand how people fall for the marketing jargan. It's like Sony blasting True 1080p everywhere, well shit I have two TVs capable of 1080p they're not True 1080p because Sony didn't make it? rofl ridiculous.
batmang
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2003
- 3,020
- 1
- 81
I never said that. I said the Q6600 is two E6600's bonded. When did I ever say the E6600 wasn't a dual core? The Q6600 is two cores on two separate dies, binded together. The Phenoms are 4 cores on one silicon. Technicaly the Phenom is a REAL quad core. Weather it makes a performance difference or not, it doesn't matter. The OP said he wanted a " True " quad core, so I gave my suggestion.
Q6600 - pic
Phenom - pic
I think the confusion comes from P4 hyperthreading making single core CPUs 'look' like a multi-cpu setup to the OS while not performing anywhere nearly as well as a 2 cpu system. In fact, on most single-threaded tasks, hyperthreading made the CPU perform worse than the same CPU with hyperthreading disabled.
The intel quads have four physical CPU cores. As pointed they are pairs of CPUs, with each pair sharing cache. I have yet to see a case where the IPC advantages of a monolithic architecture outweigh the clock rate and cache amount advantage of Intel quads.
The intel quads have four physical CPU cores. As pointed they are pairs of CPUs, with each pair sharing cache. I have yet to see a case where the IPC advantages of a monolithic architecture outweigh the clock rate and cache amount advantage of Intel quads.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter