SlingXShot
Senior member
?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Who is planning to get dual core CPUs as soon as its released?
- Thread starter SlingXShot
- Start date
I just went dual Opteron so not me.
I am!
Been holding off getting a new rig since summer in anticipation of dual cores. Really hope that they'll be worth the wait. I don't actually need them since I hardly do multi-tasking but if I do get them, would be great to write some programs that took advantage of it.
Been holding off getting a new rig since summer in anticipation of dual cores. Really hope that they'll be worth the wait. I don't actually need them since I hardly do multi-tasking but if I do get them, would be great to write some programs that took advantage of it.
I have read Intel wants to have 75% of their desktop market dual-core in a few years so you can rest assured there will be a slew of SMP aware proggies coming out to compliment AMD and Intc's offerings. Of course if you write some cool stuff I'd love a copy! 😀
Dual cores are NOT for gaming. Intel can't get past the 3.8GHz mark so they're throwing worthless dual-cores on us. Those in the know won't be fooled. I can't beleieve with Intel's immense size and abilities they can't find a solution to the excessively hot-running Prescotts!
:roll:
:roll:
Not entirely true I think. I mean yes, for current games, everything is single threaded. But then again, before the days of 3dfx's Voodoo, all games weren't 3D either. When you have the hardware for something, software tends to follow-up to make use of it.
Therefore, IMHO, games will follow suit with some form of "multi-threaded"-ness to take advantage of dual cores, albeit not immediately. Probably a year before mainstream games really start making use of it.
And about Intel not being able to get past 3.8GHz, well, I don't think that this is THE limit but remember that microprocessors can only be so small before internal errors (due to quantum effects) start building up to make a proc effectively unusable. I'm sure they'll get past 3.8GHz if they really wanted to, but there will be some sort of limit for this technology which is after all, quite old. The question really becomes, is the payoff worth the cost.
I mean, if dual-cores give you more returns for the amount of investment put into it, then why not go in that direction? I'm not saying that dual-cores are definitely the way to go, but if it produces the desired result of making a computer run smoother or apparently faster, why not?
I really doubt that it will be that difficult to write games for dual-cores, I mean, the only thing that is really required is that the game be written in several threads. It is conceivable (I have tried simple examples of this before, although not on a dual-cored system) that the AI be done in one CPU while the physics + graphics be done on the other CPU or some combination thereof. The problem would then be interprocess-communication and making it efficient so that the benefits of multi-threading do not outweigh the costs of the threads "talking" to each other (which it shouldn't be especially on a dual-core system).
My 0.02.
Haha ..well, you're on! Although I have the suspicion that I will forget this by the time dual cores are out. 😛
DragonFire
Golden Member
Even AMD has stated a single chip will be faster in games then a dual core cpu.
As for Intel fixing the P4. They need to make a new cpu from the ground up and they also need to throw out the idea that faster means better but they wont so they will keeping sucking for awhile.
imported_whatever
Platinum Member
Intel can get past 3.8GHz easily - in fact, the vast majority of E0 Prescotts are stable at over 4.0GHz. The problem is that it would require yet another motherboard revision, as the power consumption allowed is 120W, the 3.8GHz Prescott uses 119W and the power consumption scales with the clock speed.
jpetermann
Diamond Member
I love that line! 😀
MisterChief
Banned
If this is true, why haven't software developers made program's that make USE of 64bit tech in the AMD64?
DragonFire
Golden Member
From www.hardocp.com
"As for gamers, AMD admits that this segment of the market will be best served with a maximum frequency, single core solution until 2006."
"As for gamers, AMD admits that this segment of the market will be best served with a maximum frequency, single core solution until 2006."
its not that chips can only get so small before everything breaks down, but lithography. right now some things are only a few moecules wide. you can only go so much smaller. however, as lithography shrinks, chips tend to stay aroudn the same size, because more features are added.
also one good thing that intel's HT did was that it prepped the market for dual cores. so i think there will be more apps for dual cores than people think.
the 3.6 ghz P4 is at 115 watts. thats a LOT OF WATTS!!!!!!!! the 3.8 is higher. they could spend a billion dollars and get it down some how, but its not worth it.
writing code for multiple cores, doesnt necessarily mean writing it by hand, you could just recompile. you might want to do more though. i'm not exactly sure how this works.
dual cores is not just good for running different threads on different cores, you might want to run the same thread on different cores.
why do you think dual cores will be slow for games?
also one good thing that intel's HT did was that it prepped the market for dual cores. so i think there will be more apps for dual cores than people think.
the 3.6 ghz P4 is at 115 watts. thats a LOT OF WATTS!!!!!!!! the 3.8 is higher. they could spend a billion dollars and get it down some how, but its not worth it.
writing code for multiple cores, doesnt necessarily mean writing it by hand, you could just recompile. you might want to do more though. i'm not exactly sure how this works.
dual cores is not just good for running different threads on different cores, you might want to run the same thread on different cores.
why do you think dual cores will be slow for games?
ChunkyBarf
Senior member
I have a mobile AthlonXP @ 2500Mhz, and it does not feel nearly as snappy on the desktop as my old dual-500Mhz system did. I am all for dual cores if it brings back the snappiness I was so accustomed to. The question(s) of course is when and for how much. I like the dual Opteron approach in the meantime though, I would recommend dual processors to anyone who uses their computer often. I cannot comment on games, because I do not play them, but rest assured if dual-core shows a 1% increase in framerates I am confident that will be enough to convert the hard-core gamers out there. ;-)
Just my opinion,
ChunkyBarf
Just my opinion,
ChunkyBarf
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
