Is AMD rly gunning for quad core for enthusiasts/home/office desktops/ If so, why, why why?

[dug777]

Is this a 'if we can't beat intel core for core/clock for clock, we'll just add more cores' *cue manical laughter* game?

Sure, if you're running a goddamn server i can see the point, but for the rest of us dual core is going to be more than enough for quite some time...

If they aren't aiming for quad core for enthusiasts/home/office desktops, then ignore my blethering

If they are, this strikes me as possibly stupider than the clock speed race, the marginal returns per core beyond two cores are arguably far lower than for additional mhz for home/office/even gaming for a long time yet...

 

[atom]

Quad core is going to be rolled out to server platforms before they go into workstations......

Intel is also going Quad core, if AMD didn't have a quad core solution then what? Both companies have to maintain a reasonable level of parity performance-wise with one another. As far as comparing it to the mhz race, I have to disagree. As more apps become multi-threaded the usefulness of multicore processors will only increase, so the technology is way more future proof than the silly mhz wars.

 

[ribbon13]

Well, if the human race ever has to perform massive distriputing to save it's own ass....

AMD has masses of fans looking at preliminary benchmarks and looking down at them in shame; To quote Peter of Family Guy: "Oww, my pride"

Point: Beating/firsting Intel at something, anything.

 

[Vee]

If dual core is a good idea, then quadcore is a better. Now and then it seems posters in this forum assumes that an application needs to be optimized for dual cores, then optimized for quadcore, etc. That is not how it should work. A modern application that will split large chunks of work into threads in order to take advantage of multi-p for performance reasons should be able to take advantage of any number of processors. If it doesn't, my suggestion is is that the applications chief designer needs to step down to a position that is more suitable for him.

But to what degree current applications are multithreaded or not, is largely irrelevant. Hardware need to be there first.

 

[nyker96]

cool more core more cpu cool ... cool ...

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: atom
Quad core is going to be rolled out to server platforms before they go into workstations......

Intel is also going Quad core, if AMD didn't have a quad core solution then what? Both companies have to maintain a reasonable level of parity performance-wise with one another. As far as comparing it to the mhz race, I have to disagree. As more apps become multi-threaded the usefulness of multicore processors will only increase, so the technology is way more future proof than the silly mhz wars.

isn't the point of a CPU and its dominance as the key part of computers is that the majority of tasks it performs are inherently serial, and thus it's not that easy for them to take advantage of multiple cores? Unlike gfx which are massively parallel? So they have to be designed from the ground up with multi-threading in mind...and surely if they can be done perfectly adequately on a single core now, and certainly not 2x as fast on dual core in any case, marginal use of each core is going to massively dive after that 2nd core for most apps?

Unless you're running a server of course...

I'm honestly interested in what people have to say on this, as per ribbon13's post, i can't see the point of it all unless our futures depend on massively parallel data crunching in every home, a single core A64 will run all office/browser tasks more than adequately for the entire lifespan of Vista (and so it damn well should )...how long has Xp been with us?

EDIT: which raises the interesting point, how long are the general populous prepared to finance (by buying them) the devlopment of processors that offer little to no advantage to them (being mom & pop/business users who use offce and ie), but are required for gaming/serious encoding/ps work?

The logical long term result is that AMD/intel force enthusiasts into the server market price wise as far as i can see, since our demands will (and currently do) way outstrip what 98% of teh population requires...but then that would require Joe Average to wake up and realise that he doesn;t need a FX-62 to do his tax returns and browse for porn i suppose Long live the marketing department!

 

[broly8877]

single core = not enough
dual core = enough
quad core = more than enough

 

[BladeVenom]

Why would anyone ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Why would anyone ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.

a) he didn't say it
b) that's not analagous to the current situation, where unless Vista & office 2007 are crazy bloatware beasts (which from betas we know they aren't), a 3000+ A64 with 1GB of RAM should be more than adequate for office work and browsing (which is what the VAST majority of users & businesses require) until Vista's replacement.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: dug777
isn't the point of a CPU and its dominance as the key part of computers is that the majority of tasks it performs are inherently serial, and thus it's not that easy for them to take advantage of multiple cores? Unlike gfx which are massively parallel?

No. Not at all.
Computer code is conditional. Which means that the sequence of instructions that are to be executed is defined by the instructions themselves. Instructions which will explicitly direct execution to the next instruction are very frequent. This is the very essence of the "computer" and computing. And the logical chain that instructions form in this way is what we refer to as "thread". So yes, there is a sequential dependence. But only at one specific level.

Does a manufacturing factory only need to employ one single worker because all tasks are inherently sequential?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Why would anyone ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



a) he didn't say it
b) that's not analagous to the current situation, where unless Vista & office 2007 are crazy bloatware beasts (which from betas we know they aren't), a 3000+ A64 with 1GB of RAM should be more than adequate for office work and browsing (which is what the VAST majority of users & businesses require) until Vista's replacement.

b) It is analogous!
You're making exactly the same mistake as all the people who in the 70'es figured 16KB RAM and 1MHz 8-bit processor would be enough for all personal computer use forever. (And I'm ancient so I was there at the time and heard them.) (but no, B.Gates never said that. You're right about a))
That mistake is that you cannot conceive of using a computer for different purposes and tasks than you are today. Or doing them in a different manner.
The need for computing performance is infinite. It doesn't end anywhere.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Vee

Originally posted by: dug777
isn't the point of a CPU and its dominance as the key part of computers is that the majority of tasks it performs are inherently serial, and thus it's not that easy for them to take advantage of multiple cores? Unlike gfx which are massively parallel?

No. Not at all.
Computer code is conditional. Which means that the sequence of instructions that are to be executed is defined by the instructions themselves. Instructions which will explicitly direct execution to the next instruction are very frequent. This is the very essence of the "computer" and computing. And the logical chain that instructions form in this way is what we refer to as "thread". So yes, there is a sequential dependence. But only at one specific level.

Does a manufacturing factory only need to employ one single worker because all tasks are inherently sequential?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Why would anyone ever need more than 640 KB of RAM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



a) he didn't say it
b) that's not analagous to the current situation, where unless Vista & office 2007 are crazy bloatware beasts (which from betas we know they aren't), a 3000+ A64 with 1GB of RAM should be more than adequate for office work and browsing (which is what the VAST majority of users & businesses require) until Vista's replacement.

b) It is analogous!
You're making exactly the same mistake as all the people who in the 70'es figured 16KB RAM and 1MHz 8-bit processor would be enough for all personal computer use forever. (And I'm ancient so I was there at the time and heard them.) (but no, B.Gates never said that. You're right about a))
That mistake is that you cannot conceive of using a computer for different purposes and tasks than you are today. Or doing them in a different manner.

I certainly didn't say forever

However, i can't see what these different uses that will need more power are? Nothing that the vast majority of the population use a computer for today wouldn't run perfectly adequately on a computer from late 2000/early 2001 (Northwood/512mb of RAM/7200 rpm HDD)...

We are in an entirely different technological phase of devlopment to then, and there's nothing on the horizon that suggests a need for a massive increase in computing power in the forseeable future for the average user, unlike then.

Just my 2c

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: dug777
I certainly didn't say forever

However, i can't see what these different uses that will need more power are? Nothing that the vast majority of the population use a computer for today wouldn't run perfectly adequately on a computer from late 2000/early 2001 (Northwood/512mb of RAM/7200 rpm HDD)...

We are in an entirely different technological phase of devlopment to then, and there's nothing on the horizon that suggests a need for a massive increase in computing power in the forseeable future for the average user, unlike then.

Just my 2c

Yes, I agree with the gist of it. But AMD and Intel are producing processors that are sufficient for the vast majority and their software as of today. Like Semprons and 501 and 600 series P4s. So there's no reason to complain that you can only get some expensive quadcore. And I must stress that all my own hardware acqusitions are fairly moderate. I will never recommend anyone to go and get the latest and greatest.

But that current mainstream software with all it's functionality, like mediawise and connectionwise, didn't pop up in a vacuum. The hardware to run it must be there first.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: dug777
Is this a 'if we can't beat intel core for core/clock for clock, we'll just add more cores' *cue manical laughter* game?

Sure, if you're running a goddamn server i can see the point, but for the rest of us dual core is going to be more than enough for quite some time...

If they aren't aiming for quad core for enthusiasts/home/office desktops, then ignore my blethering

If they are, this strikes me as possibly stupider than the clock speed race, the marginal returns per core beyond two cores are arguably far lower than for additional mhz for home/office/even gaming for a long time yet...

so you can play fear, stalker, HL2, Oblivion, and Krysis, and rip a DVD and upload a dvd and encode a dvd, and play music and watch a movie at the same time. Why else?

 

[CyborgNinja117]

i think its just too early for quad cores... heck we dont even have proper multi-threaded apps now! i dont see the advantage of having 4 cores... unless ur dedicated to run rosseta@home, folding@home, seti@home etc... i dont see anypoint for quad core for gaming

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: dug777
Is this a 'if we can't beat intel core for core/clock for clock, we'll just add more cores' *cue manical laughter* game?

Sure, if you're running a goddamn server i can see the point, but for the rest of us dual core is going to be more than enough for quite some time...

If they aren't aiming for quad core for enthusiasts/home/office desktops, then ignore my blethering

If they are, this strikes me as possibly stupider than the clock speed race, the marginal returns per core beyond two cores are arguably far lower than for additional mhz for home/office/even gaming for a long time yet...

so you can play fear, stalker, HL2, Oblivion, and Krysis, and rip a DVD and upload a dvd and encode a dvd, and play music and watch a movie at the same time. Why else?

How would you watch a movie and play a game at the same time?
Or better yet...why? You wouldn't be able to fully concentrate on either.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Vee

Originally posted by: dug777
I certainly didn't say forever

However, i can't see what these different uses that will need more power are? Nothing that the vast majority of the population use a computer for today wouldn't run perfectly adequately on a computer from late 2000/early 2001 (Northwood/512mb of RAM/7200 rpm HDD)...

We are in an entirely different technological phase of devlopment to then, and there's nothing on the horizon that suggests a need for a massive increase in computing power in the forseeable future for the average user, unlike then.

Just my 2c

Yes, I agree with the gist of it. But AMD and Intel are producing processors that are sufficient for the vast majority and their software as of today. Like Semprons and 501 and 600 series P4s. So there's no reason to complain that you can only get some expensive quadcore. And I must stress that all my own hardware acqusitions are fairly moderate. I will never recommend anyone to go and get the latest and greatest.

But that current mainstream software with all it's functionality, like mediawise and connectionwise, didn't pop up in a vacuum. The hardware to run it must be there first.

I am interested in the price positioning of say a quad core part, since it will be quite a marketing feat to persuade the average computer user or business that they actually need it...returning to my thesis earlier that AMD/intel will have to start treating enthusiasts with our associated exceptionally high power requirements like the server market, and charge accordingly...

Or perhaps i have underestimated the power of marketing?

 

[Duvie]

If you guys read my thread on my dual dual 270's I showed you several apps and reasons to have more then 2 cores....dual core support is there in apps that are geared more towards workstation already...4 cores would be welcomed for me and I wouldn't be running a server

Also while I showed several encoding apps that did not scale as perfectly as I would have liked with 4 cores I think in many instances that was a result of I/O limitations...

 

[Marmion]

Of course we need quad core. Just think of it, we will all be able to hack AOE3, and make a 10000 man army, fully utilising our Quad SLI and Quad Core CPUs
Personally, I see no point - but hey, they have to be seen doing something don't they?

 

[Duvie]

Actually you guys are looking past these things...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

Gknot and H.264 codec??? I was 66% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...i think that is tangible...

Tmpeg 2.52 and 3.0express with high precision and motion quality and I was about +50% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores....

DVDshrink was 59% faster then 2 cores...

Cinebench was 80% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...common graphics engine

Architectural Desktop 2004 using Viz renderer (same engine as used in 3dsmax7) using radiosity was 2x faster then 2 cores...very helpful in processing complexed renderings....

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually you guys are looking past these things...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

Gknot and H.264 codec??? I was 66% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...i think that is tangible...

Tmpeg 2.52 and 3.0express with high precision and motion quality and I was about +50% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores....

DVDshrink was 59% faster then 2 cores...

Cinebench was 80% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...common graphics engine

Architectural Desktop 2004 using Viz renderer (same engine as used in 3dsmax7) using radiosity was 2x faster then 2 cores...very helpful in processing complexed renderings....

i appreciate these factors, but using all of them except perhaps DVDShrink (and even then, i don't think any of my mates know what that is) immediately puts you on a different usage level to 98% of the population, who use Office/IE/Limewire/WMP/Winamp...

which returns to my question about where future differential pricing is going...

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: dug777
Is this a 'if we can't beat intel core for core/clock for clock, we'll just add more cores' *cue manical laughter* game?

Sure, if you're running a goddamn server i can see the point, but for the rest of us dual core is going to be more than enough for quite some time...

If they aren't aiming for quad core for enthusiasts/home/office desktops, then ignore my blethering

If they are, this strikes me as possibly stupider than the clock speed race, the marginal returns per core beyond two cores are arguably far lower than for additional mhz for home/office/even gaming for a long time yet...

so you can play fear, stalker, HL2, Oblivion, and Krysis, and rip a DVD and upload a dvd and encode a dvd, and play music and watch a movie at the same time. Why else?

How would you watch a movie and play a game at the same time?
Or better yet...why? You wouldn't be able to fully concentrate on either.

just playin around bud...

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually you guys are looking past these things...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

Gknot and H.264 codec??? I was 66% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...i think that is tangible...

Tmpeg 2.52 and 3.0express with high precision and motion quality and I was about +50% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores....

DVDshrink was 59% faster then 2 cores...

Cinebench was 80% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...common graphics engine

Architectural Desktop 2004 using Viz renderer (same engine as used in 3dsmax7) using radiosity was 2x faster then 2 cores...very helpful in processing complexed renderings....

Now Duvie, don't go spoiling someone's perfectly-good rant with logic, reason and facts

Personally I don't use anything fancier than Premiere Elements and Windows Media Encoder, and I'd be happy to move up to a quad-core processor. Whatever power my little video-editing app can't take advantage of, I can use on other stuff in the meanwhile.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually you guys are looking past these things...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

Gknot and H.264 codec??? I was 66% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...i think that is tangible...

Tmpeg 2.52 and 3.0express with high precision and motion quality and I was about +50% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores....

DVDshrink was 59% faster then 2 cores...

Cinebench was 80% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...common graphics engine

Architectural Desktop 2004 using Viz renderer (same engine as used in 3dsmax7) using radiosity was 2x faster then 2 cores...very helpful in processing complexed renderings....

Now Duvie, don't go spoiling someone's perfectly-good rant with logic, reason and facts

Personally I don't use anything fancier than Premiere Elements and Windows Media Encoder, and I'd be happy to move up to a quad-core processor. Whatever power my little video-editing app can't take advantage of, I can use on other stuff in the meanwhile.

I've never met anyone IRL who actually does any encoding (of course, it may just be that my mates/gf/relations/colleagues etc are odd, and everyone else's grandmothers/parents/colleagues are encoding 24/7, while working on complex models in VIS) If you look up you can see i replied to his post tho...

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually you guys are looking past these things...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

Gknot and H.264 codec??? I was 66% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...i think that is tangible...

Tmpeg 2.52 and 3.0express with high precision and motion quality and I was about +50% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores....

DVDshrink was 59% faster then 2 cores...

Cinebench was 80% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...common graphics engine

Architectural Desktop 2004 using Viz renderer (same engine as used in 3dsmax7) using radiosity was 2x faster then 2 cores...very helpful in processing complexed renderings....

Now Duvie, don't go spoiling someone's perfectly-good rant with logic, reason and facts

Personally I don't use anything fancier than Premiere Elements and Windows Media Encoder, and I'd be happy to move up to a quad-core processor. Whatever power my little video-editing app can't take advantage of, I can use on other stuff in the meanwhile.

I've never met anyone IRL who actually does any encoding (of course, it may just be that my mates/gf/relations/colleagues etc are odd, and everyone else's grandmothers/parents/colleagues are encoding 24/7, while working on complex models in VIS) If you look up you can see i replied to his post tho...

I wish I could find my favorite screenshot of my dual-core rig doing "office work." :evil: I could've used a quad-core processor, between Adobe Premiere Elements eating 90%+ of both cores, a simultaneous analog-capture job via the PVR150 for the next job (it was a busy afternoon that day, so I resorted to this), Outlook2000, a couple web browsers, a CD burn for an employee, and a heavy-hitting enterprise-class antivirus/anti-intrusion package watchdogging everything. It was a good day to have 15000rpm SCSI, 2GB of RAM and an A64 X2. It handled it so smoothly it was scary, considering I was right at the 2GB ceiling, but I wouldn't say no to it getting done 50%-90% faster either.

I wouldn't have even attempted a scenario like that with my single-core CPU that preceded the dual-core. But given the power to do it, I'll do it. So bring on the quad-cores, and let's see what people do with them. "If you build it, they will come."

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Duvie
Actually you guys are looking past these things...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=28&threadid=1830732&enterthread=y

Gknot and H.264 codec??? I was 66% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...i think that is tangible...

Tmpeg 2.52 and 3.0express with high precision and motion quality and I was about +50% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores....

DVDshrink was 59% faster then 2 cores...

Cinebench was 80% faster with 4 cores versus 2 cores...common graphics engine

Architectural Desktop 2004 using Viz renderer (same engine as used in 3dsmax7) using radiosity was 2x faster then 2 cores...very helpful in processing complexed renderings....

Now Duvie, don't go spoiling someone's perfectly-good rant with logic, reason and facts

Personally I don't use anything fancier than Premiere Elements and Windows Media Encoder, and I'd be happy to move up to a quad-core processor. Whatever power my little video-editing app can't take advantage of, I can use on other stuff in the meanwhile.

I've never met anyone IRL who actually does any encoding (of course, it may just be that my mates/gf/relations/colleagues etc are odd, and everyone else's grandmothers/parents/colleagues are encoding 24/7, while working on complex models in VIS) If you look up you can see i replied to his post tho...

I wish I could find my favorite screenshot of my dual-core rig doing "office work." :evil: I could've used a quad-core processor, between Adobe Premiere Elements eating 90%+ of both cores, a simultaneous analog-capture job via the PVR150 for the next job (it was a busy afternoon that day, so I resorted to this), Outlook2000, a couple web browsers, a CD burn for an employee, and a heavy-hitting enterprise-class antivirus/anti-intrusion package watchdogging everything. It was a good day to have 15000rpm SCSI, 2GB of RAM and an A64 X2.

I wouldn't have even attempted a scenario like that with my single-core CPU that preceded the dual-core. But given the power to do it, I'll do it. So bring on the quad-cores, and let's see what people do with them. "If you build it, they will come."

:Q i think you belong to the 'extreme' end of the market somewhat. But i'm quite happy to agree to have a mild disagreement

However, what do you think of the differential pricing thesis i briefly touched on at a few points in this thread?