Single-Cores dying out?

[BlingBlingArsch]

Hi,

ive seen articles bout Yonah and Conroe rumours so iam a lil confused if there will be any new single-cores coming out from Intel or AMD with the next 12 months? To me it seems that there is no more single-core planned ever? Thats true?

2nd: Iam convinced there are advantages coming from dual-core, what iam not convinced of is, that i will recognize these advantages unless iam using ways more multi-threaded software, and i was trying to find these softwares but theres only some out there like tmpgenc or stuff. And dont tell me bout Farcry or Riddick, i seen the reviews saying, changes in imagequality have nothing to do with multi-theading. So.....why is Intel trying so hard to push the dual-cores through??

3rd: Prices...when single-cores are dying out within a year, will Duallies cost the same like single-cores?

thx.

 

[Lonyo]

FX57 from AMD, err, can't think of much else.

Intel duallies are similarly priced to single cores (slightly more, but not much more), AMD's are priced at the higher end of their structure.

Multi-threaded apps will come, but right now thre's nothing to use them. Intel and AMD are pushing out the hardware, and doing that will mean developers will take advantage of dual cores, but obviously it's not going to be immediate.
They are pushing to dual core because it's easier than making faster processors in many ways. They are hitting a brick wall in terms of ways to make things faster, and dual core is an easy way to get faster speeds.

 

[Keysplayr]

Yonah will be available in Dual core and single core. Not sure about Merom or Conroe.
Presler and Cedar Mill are next out for Intel. They will be Dual Core and Single Core respectively.

I have no idea what AMD is planning on.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
FX57 from AMD, err, can't think of much else.

Intel duallies are similarly priced to single cores (slightly more, but not much more), AMD's are priced at the higher end of their structure.

Multi-threaded apps will come, but right now thre's nothing to use them. Intel and AMD are pushing out the hardware, and doing that will mean developers will take advantage of dual cores, but obviously it's not going to be immediate.
They are pushing to dual core because it's easier than making faster processors in many ways. They are hitting a brick wall in terms of ways to make things faster, and dual core is an easy way to get faster speeds.

Spoken like a true gamer who in my opnion waste his time at the PC....

Buddy there are tons of apps today just not in the gaming area. In all the other areas there are generally SMT apps or at least a few programs that are....encoding audio and video has lots of them, CAD rendering has lots of them, scientific apps have some, Distributed crunching can run multiple instances with dual cores, etc...The only ppl who say that crap are just gamers and around here gamers think they are top dawg....

Not to mention dual core will help single task apps by allowing you to do them with little or no impact while you did other cpu intensive applications....


Dual cor eis really no option for INtel at this point as correctly said above. AMD could have gone a bit further but they too were etting close to being at the limits both thermally and power wise, and I am sure would have wanted to avoid more lengthening of the pipeline and morphing into the failing P4 architecture as we know it....

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Yonah will be available in Dual core and single core. Not sure about Merom or Conroe.
Presler and Cedar Mill are next out for Intel. They will be Dual Core and Single Core respectively.

I have no idea what AMD is planning on.

Oh, can I sum up the list, or would you rather have the roadmap?
Currently, Windsor, Orleans and Manilla are up. All three of these feature dual-channel DDR2 memory, on Socket M2 (revised S940). Windsor will be dual core. Windsor and Orleans will feature Pacifica (virtualisation) and Presidio (security), similair to Intel's Vanderpool and LaGrande.

Or, you might prefer this:

--EDIT-- Spelling errors. >: (

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Isn't WindowXP pro SMT capable? This will allow the dual core advantage of multi-tasking even with single threaded apps. This should provide an imediate advantage even if you don't use any SMT capable apps. And as more and more apps go SMT over the next few years it will be icing on the cake, and eventually seal the fate of single core chips.

 

[Aenslead]

Intel is pushing hard on the dual core area because they have reached an architecture limit with the Prescott, hence, they must find other ways to increase performance other than changing their whole CPU architecture lineup. Dual cores was the next logical thing.

It is, after all, just a way to stay in the game.

I've heard rumors that their next architecture was to be based on the Pentium M concept: IPC, not just clock with huge pipelines.

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Isn't WindowXP pro SMT capable? This will allow the dual core advantage of multi-tasking even with single threaded apps. This should provide an imediate advantage even if you don't use any SMT capable apps. And as more and more apps go SMT over the next few years it will be icing on the cake, and eventually seal the fate of single core chips.

Yes, yes it does. Windows XP Pro features SMT. Longhorn (or as Intelia would call it: Longtime) will feature it, too. So, yes, if you run multiple applications on one (1) processor with multiple (>2) cores, you will benefit from it.

--EDIT-- Forgot to quote. >: (

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Isn't WindowXP pro SMT capable? This will allow the dual core advantage of multi-tasking even with single threaded apps. This should provide an imediate advantage even if you don't use any SMT capable apps. And as more and more apps go SMT over the next few years it will be icing on the cake, and eventually seal the fate of single core chips.

Yeah and so is windwos XP home...It will run dual cores just fine and whether in pro or not no single threaded app will run any faster cause you use pro....

Multitasking should be the same on both of the OSes....

NOw I think perhaps Intels XE line may need pro because it will see 4 cores...But I have never heard a confirmation on that yet....It may only be a single physical (socket thing_ and thus even home with run INtel Dual core offering with HT just fine...

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Isn't WindowXP pro SMT capable? This will allow the dual core advantage of multi-tasking even with single threaded apps. This should provide an imediate advantage even if you don't use any SMT capable apps. And as more and more apps go SMT over the next few years it will be icing on the cake, and eventually seal the fate of single core chips.

Yeah and so is windwos XP home...It will run dual cores just fine and whether in pro or not no single threaded app will run any faster cause you use pro....

Multitasking should be the same on both of the OSes....

NOw I think perhaps Intels XE line may need pro because it will see 4 cores...But I have never heard a confirmation on that yet....It may only be a single physical (socket thing_ and thus even home with run INtel Dual core offering with HT just fine...

I don't think it's got anything to do with physical cores. Pro would see it as 4 cores, and it doesn't care that 2 of those are virtual, non-existant cores.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: Duvie



Yeah and so is windwos XP home...It will run dual cores just fine and whether in pro or not no single threaded app will run any faster cause you use pro....

Multitasking should be the same on both of the OSes....

NOw I think perhaps Intels XE line may need pro because it will see 4 cores...But I have never heard a confirmation on that yet....It may only be a single physical (socket thing_ and thus even home with run INtel Dual core offering with HT just fine...

The things I've read indicate XP home doesn't support SMT or dual proccessors?

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001n...geeknews/2001nov/bch20011119008935.htm

http://support.intel.com/support/proces...om/support/processors/sb/CS-007880.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/crawford_november26.mspx

http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/34169/Windows_XP_Go_Home_or_Go_Pro.html


Am I missing something?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Duvie



Yeah and so is windwos XP home...It will run dual cores just fine and whether in pro or not no single threaded app will run any faster cause you use pro....

Multitasking should be the same on both of the OSes....

NOw I think perhaps Intels XE line may need pro because it will see 4 cores...But I have never heard a confirmation on that yet....It may only be a single physical (socket thing_ and thus even home with run INtel Dual core offering with HT just fine...

The things I've read indicate XP home doesn't support SMT or dual proccessors?

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001n...geeknews/2001nov/bch20011119008935.htm

http://support.intel.com/support/proces...om/support/processors/sb/CS-007880.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/crawford_november26.mspx

http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/34169/Windows_XP_Go_Home_or_Go_Pro.html


Am I missing something?

yeah the fact that ppl have been running P4's with HT for 2 years now on winxp home...That and the fact that some of the reviews have been done on home edition as well....

It will see logical and virtual cpus (multiples) but just doesn't recognize 2 physical (socket) cpus.....

I still am unsure if it will see the 4 cores of the XE 840 though but I am 100% certain it sees the 840 and the x2s in home....

All those articles are way too damn old to use and out ofd touch....they proceeded HT and the real trick behind multiple cores while not having 2 physical cpus....The intel doc is clearly for like Xeon physcial dual cpu systems...

AMD and INtel would have a much tougher time trying to get ppl to upgrade if they had to buy a new OS at a cost of 100-200 dollars....That kind of upgrade is a killer...

 

[Zebo]

Intel is pushing dual core so hard becuase it's the only way to get more performance anymore. Intel and AMD both know it. They've really been tapped on Mhz for most part for 2+ years...

 

[RichUK]

damn it i have got home and i dont really want to have to buy pro to use an X2 properly ... although i might buy Win xp64 that should be able to up the anti on performance

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Ok, I get it now! Home won't work for actual dual processors, but it will work with X2
Thanks for straighting me out

 

[Aenslead]

Microsoft has made it clear that WinXP sees sockets, not cores. If a Pentium D is used on WinPX Home, there will be two processors on display. Likewise for a PXE, though I wonder why would anyone use such an expensive processor with Home Edition.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Microsoft has made it clear that WinXP sees sockets, not cores. If a Pentium D is used on WinPX Home, there will be two processors on display. Likewise for a PXE, though I wonder why would anyone use such an expensive processor with Home Edition.

makes sense plus the fact that even a lot of the SMT threaded apps seemed to have issues using the 4 cores efficiently or at all....

XE is a paper cpu not meant to sell many but likely to give the impression of competitiveness and they can taut 4 cpus recognized...marketing BS likely...

 

[Vegitto]

Originally posted by: RichUK
damn it i have got home and i dont really want to have to buy pro to use an X2 properly ... although i might buy Win xp64 that should be able to up the anti on performance

I wouldn't get x64 if I were you. From what I've read, it won't work all that good for not having all that much x64 software.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

hmm, so Intels next processors Cedarmill and Yonah will be in 65nm, AMDs Toledo, Windsor etc. will be in 90nm. I guess AMD knows what its doin. Speaking of AMD, this http://www.tweakers.net/ext/f/50138/full.gif shows theyll be using DDR2 like Intel already does - thats suprising as i thought theyd jump directly to DDR3. Cuz i heard DDR2, due to its low frequencies (or at least not much higher clock speeds compared with DDR1) was no big deal for AMD.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Another question: What kind of processor will Intels Desktop Cedar Mill be, some kind of a Pentium IV in 65nm which doesnt make sense? Any ideas what specials the CedarMill, eg Presler is gonna have?

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: RichUK
damn it i have got home and i dont really want to have to buy pro to use an X2 properly ... although i might buy Win xp64 that should be able to up the anti on performance

I wouldn't get x64 if I were you. From what I've read, it won't work all that good for not having all that much x64 software.

I?ve already run RC2 on my PC and it aint that bad (except for the 64bit IE which is awful), anyways when it is released there will not be that much to worry about for driver compatibility as that is getting better and also Nvidia have chipped in (with there GFX).. I will be getting it when its soon to come out anyway, with regards to software i will be using a dual boot, so the software that doesn't work on X64, i will use on regular windows xp instead..

It wont be long until companies adopt x64 revision?s of there software, or patches that utilise x64 ...

EDIT: and anyways all 32bit applications can be run on the 64 OS anyways, since i am running a dually with RC2 i can vouch for that .. its just 64bit drivers that are going to be the problem, but that will only be at start, untill they start to be widely released.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
Hi,

ive seen articles bout Yonah and Conroe rumours so iam a lil confused if there will be any new single-cores coming out from Intel or AMD with the next 12 months? To me it seems that there is no more single-core planned ever? Thats true?

2nd: Iam convinced there are advantages coming from dual-core, what iam not convinced of is, that i will recognize these advantages unless iam using ways more multi-threaded software, and i was trying to find these softwares but theres only some out there like tmpgenc or stuff. And dont tell me bout Farcry or Riddick, i seen the reviews saying, changes in imagequality have nothing to do with multi-theading. So.....why is Intel trying so hard to push the dual-cores through??

3rd: Prices...when single-cores are dying out within a year, will Duallies cost the same like single-cores?

thx.

You are confusing 64 bit and dual core. There are 64 bit versions of Farcry and windows XP, but no dual core versions AFAIK. And you will see a huge difference with dual core if you multi task. Games won't benefit yet, but you will be able to game and run other things in the background.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Aenslead
Microsoft has made it clear that WinXP sees sockets, not cores. If a Pentium D is used on WinPX Home, there will be two processors on display. Likewise for a PXE, though I wonder why would anyone use such an expensive processor with Home Edition.

makes sense plus the fact that even a lot of the SMT threaded apps seemed to have issues using the 4 cores efficiently or at all....

XE is a paper cpu not meant to sell many but likely to give the impression of competitiveness and they can taut 4 cpus recognized...marketing BS likely...

Yes. That seems to be the impression that AT's tests have given. Though, I wonder how it would fare in server apps. More capability to process seperate threads at the same time are always nice in this enviroment.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: RichUK
damn it i have got home and i dont really want to have to buy pro to use an X2 properly ... although i might buy Win xp64 that should be able to up the anti on performance

I wouldn't get x64 if I were you. From what I've read, it won't work all that good for not having all that much x64 software.

I disagree. All 32 bit programs will run perfectly on WinXP 64. The only issue up to date are drivers, but that was the exact same case when XP came out, too. A Matter that will be resolved in 3 months at most.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

Originally posted by: CheesePoofs

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
Hi,

ive seen articles bout Yonah and Conroe rumours so iam a lil confused if there will be any new single-cores coming out from Intel or AMD with the next 12 months? To me it seems that there is no more single-core planned ever? Thats true?

2nd: Iam convinced there are advantages coming from dual-core, what iam not convinced of is, that i will recognize these advantages unless iam using ways more multi-threaded software, and i was trying to find these softwares but theres only some out there like tmpgenc or stuff. And dont tell me bout Farcry or Riddick, i seen the reviews saying, changes in imagequality have nothing to do with multi-theading. So.....why is Intel trying so hard to push the dual-cores through??

3rd: Prices...when single-cores are dying out within a year, will Duallies cost the same like single-cores?

thx.

You are confusing 64 bit and dual core. There are 64 bit versions of Farcry and windows XP, but no dual core versions AFAIK. And you will see a huge difference with dual core if you multi task. Games won't benefit yet, but you will be able to game and run other things in the background.

yes, ur right, it was pretty late here when i wrote this...of course the 64bit reviews on Farcry have nothin to do with multiple threads. But still, there are couple of multi-threaded applications, so with multi-cores being called the future I will start lookin thoroughly for the right software that maybe can take advantage of multiple parallel threads. I know this is a slow process since programming multi-threading-software is a lot harder, like Debugging etc.

Back to the upcoming cores: How can the Presler have hyper-threading, though its made in 65nm?