Intel Takes Quad Core To the Desktop 191
Rob writes to mention a Computer Business Review Online article about Intel's official launch of the Kentsfield chipset. Their Quad Core offering, Intel is claiming, is up to 80% faster than the dual-core Conroe released this past July. From the article: "Kentsfield, a 2.66GHz chip with a 1066MHz front-side bus, is more for computational-heavy usage, including digital content creation, engineering analysis, such as CAD, and actuarial and other financial applications. Steve Smith, director of operations for Intel digital enterprise group, claimed rendering is 58% faster for users building digital content creation systems, for video, photo editing or digital audio. In other words, Kentsfield is for high-end desktops or workstations only. For the average office worker who uses their PC for general productivity apps, such as communications and garden-variety computing, Smith recommended the Core 2 Duo from 'a price point and performance perspective.'"
Why downplay it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why downplay it? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason is of course, that most games are barely optimised for dual cores, let alone four cores. It is not simple either as balancing several cores to get the most out of them requires a redesign of the game engine.
It will be significant for future games, but you are better off buying a high-end dual core now and replacing it with quad-core later on.
Re:Why downplay it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. The best bit about quad core for the moment is that it should drive the dual core prices down.
Cheers,
Roger
WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
What? I thought EVERYONE used WinDVR to encode MPEG2 files of Battlestar Gallactica from their TIVO while playing F.E.A.R., and turn it into H262 for uploading as a a killer torrent while kicking but in Call of Duty 2? I suck the life out of an X2 4400 bitch, and I am NOT alone.
We cant all have a life, so I NEED that chip!
You insensitive clod!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I've gone over this before and eventually posted on Kerneltrap [kerneltrap.org], and even when Slashdot reported on it [slashdot.org] nobody seems to have cared.
Games are more than pumping FPS.
(Ad yes Valve's babble about a "new programming strategy" to use multi-core CPUs is bullshit; it's simply easier to use threads to handle each object in the physics engine and each AI, and that's immensely helpful when you don't want to worry about scheduling making your game choppy due to too many threads on one CPU)
Re: (Score:2)
All the engineering, digital content creation, and gaming use similar algorithms to model/visualize water, fire and smoke. However, engineering does require high precision (64-bit floats) while animation and gaming can get away with lower precision (16-b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enthusiasts want Kentsfield and are willing to pay for it. Average people may want it, but are only willing to pay for Celeron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Office Apps (Score:4, Funny)
My recommendation (Score:3, Funny)
It's the only way to play.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Office Apps - MineSweeper (Score:2)
You can now sweep mines out of four oceans simultaneously.
WoW-Core (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WoW-Core -- Need More (Score:2)
Only if you have 4 disc drives to feed the four cores simultaneously.
Will it be supported... (Score:3, Insightful)
Only 50 percent speedup on two cores (Score:2)
I am about 50 percent faster on two cores -- I am guess
Memory bandwidth (Score:2)
One more argument in favor of the AMD Opteron architecture, even though for single-threaded applications it is currently sl
Profiling (Score:2)
I could test and profile and figure out the bottlenecks but I don't have the time to play with it right now and not having a 4-core computer, I won't see much benefit. Part of the probl
I can't help but feel they're... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds... hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about other parts of the computer? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you complaint is the FSB; the AMD has something better for you. So what are you looking for here really?
Re:What about other parts of the computer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about other parts of the computer? (Score:4, Informative)
Say hello to AMD, HyperTransport and integrated memory-controllers. Each CPU has it's own bank of RAM, and Each CPU is directly (well, 8-socket system needs one intermediate jump) connected to the other CPU's, and they can access the RAM connected to the other CPU's as well. So if you have dual-socket system, each socket has it's own RAM-bank, with 128bit bus between the CPU and the RAM, and the CPU can access the RAM attached to the other CPU as well. So as the number of CPU's goes up, the memory-bandwidth goes up as well.
This tech has been used since 2003 in the AMD's x86-64 CPU's. In the future AMD will have systems where you can plug co-processors and vid-cards to HyperTransport-sockets, alloweing them to directly communicate with the CPU's.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! I gotta get me one of those!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try connecting 4 of these chips together using only 3 HyperTransport links per core, with a single-hop memory latency, and allow for one link to external I/O. Can't be done. There are two hops required for the core that handles I/O, which is not a good thing when you consider how important I/O links are in a server.
Try connecting 8 sockets using only 3 HyperTransport
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I DID say that 8-socket configuration need one additional hop...
Re: (Score:2)
I will take two please and load them up with raid of 15k rpm drives and a quad SLI please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right!
I'm using a dual-core (AMD) right now, and the machine has a lot going on on it, but the bottleneck more often than not is not the CPU or even the memory - it's the disk! I have 2 cores, 4GB RAM, but only one HD (SATA), and it's definitely noticeable. I don't think an Intel Quad core would help significantly, even though I've got plenty of processes to spread across the cores.
I'm wondering if a hardware RAID solution would make things better, but I don't have first-hand experience with that
Re: (Score:2)
If you want increased throughput (and maybe slightly faster seek times) go with 2 or 3 disk RAID0. If you want peace of mind, go with a 4 or 6 disk RAID10 setup which will be 2x to 3x faster (throughput) then a single disk or a single RAID1 set. Net capacity is the same as RAID1, half the gross capacity.
I have a few RAID10 arrays now and I keep wanting to
Not native Quad core (Score:3, Informative)
http://xstremehardware.co.uk/index.php?option=com
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that true? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Intel's approach gets quadcore to market far faster, and once AMD can deliver quadcore on
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, if the quadcore hinders the clock of the FSB compared to what it could be, it's highly relevant.
"When AMD announces a single die processor with multiple integrated memory controllers then it matters."
Barcelona is that.
"Offsetting AMD's memory throughput advantages are Intel's much larger caches."
True, it brings more problems into the space of operating entirely in
Re: (Score:2)
It could be, but this isn't hypothetical. We know how much the effect is (and it's not dramatic). Meanwhile, not all cores in the AMD design have the same pathway to memory.
"Barcelona is that."
When that arrives it will be part of the discussion. Until then it is not competition for current products.
"The exception being that in the short term we see Intel clocking down FSB for quad-core."
They also clock down
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I recently met with an Intel rep and they are very much pushing their new core architecture. Quad-core this year, Octo-core next.. Core count is the next clock speed. However one of it matters until the software manufacturers can take advantage of it, and very few server applica
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are three sides to this: Intel's, AMD's, and the truth.
Funny thing happened on the way to IT Support... (Score:3, Interesting)
We were issued laptops at the start of the project. Typical laptop is a Thinkpad T42p. They average somewhere between 1.6Ghz and 1.8Ghz.
Some people were complaining about performance (java is a hog, and they were using stuff that makes java look 'light'). so they requested new machines.
They were issued Core 2 Duo systems that are 1.8Ghz, with 2 Gigs of ram. This machines are nice. They guy from IT Support comes up to replace the system and starts saying that he doesn't know why we would upgrade to the desktops, they are the same speed as the laptops.
Ok, I expect that from some guy off the street, but IT Support?
(Note: For this work there is a significant speed difference, it is obvious, and almost immediate.)
Never mind the differences between a single core from a Core 2 Duo, and the core used in a Thinkpad anyway...
I have one of these babies (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole thing is a joke, for most people. Like cars that go 1000
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed a difference upgrading from a Dual Xeon 2.0Ghz to a Dual Core Pentium D 805 (2.66Ghz) with quicktime streams for instance. Aside from my poor choice in video card (Geforce 7300), my new
Re: (Score:2)
I complained to the Advertising Standards Agency about one of those adverts which was made by PC World. I'm still sour about it. I quote from the letter:
"We did not consider that the advertisement implied that dual core processors were the only type of processor that could multi-task, or that they improved internet connectivity or performance. [the sales guy said something like 'playing a game while downloading
Re:I have one of these babies (Score:5, Interesting)
I will say "lucky bastard", but that also explains your follow-up comment:
Applications can barely use two cores properly, and games are still not as SMP aware as they should.
Although apps and games have started to improve their multithreading, you don't get multi-core for single-app performance. You get it so you can play a modern FPS at the same time you have DVD Shrink backing up a movie for you, with little to no slowdown to either. With a quad core, you can add in two more CPU sucking tasks, again with little to no slowdown (though currently, memory needs to catch up to task of dealing with more cores).
Six(ish) years ago, I got my first dual CPU machine. Almost nothing except the OS itself ran multithreaded at that time. And the improved performance of the machine just blew me away - Only last year did I eventually decommission that ancient dual CPU box because modern single-CPU speeds had passed it (and I still would have held out, except for the knowledge that I could do an in-place upgrade to a dual-core CPU whenever I wanted to).
So you may not see the point of multi-cores, when your favorite game won't run any faster on four than on one. But that doesn't even come close to meaning that "most" people won't benefit. Quite the opposite, I'd say that only hard-core gamers wouldn't benefit. Everyone else will feel the improved responsiveness the first time they touch a multi-core box.
Re:I have one of these babies (Score:4, Insightful)
MSN, BitTorrent, an MP3 player and a web browser all running at once (on top of background services) on a single-core system leads to a lot of task switching that is entirely unnecessary in a multi-core environment. And while throughput may not increase 4x, responsiveness will be very much improved.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, as it gets harder and harder to make larger CPUs run faster the trend is going to be more, smaller processors per die. Each core is by itself slower than a huge monolithic one, but the sum is greater thanks to non-linear scaling. The trick is getting software to efficiently utilize them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Mateorabi's law, anyone?
Hype (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All that matters to me are the issues:
And I will decide the applications that I will use it for!
--jeffk++
Benchmarks! (Score:3, Informative)
Intel's right. On games it doesn't do any better. On video though, well, lets just say I know some architecture majors who would have loved these in their lab several years ago, when 1 frame took 10 minutes to render. And they had 300 frame videos to do.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you doing in your projects?
Yeah, Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that much faster on carefully selected software. And slower on some single thread applications that rely most of all on clock-speed and uncontested memory bus access.
Would be nice for once to have headlines read something more honest like:
Speed improvements range from -20% for 50% of your software, up to +80% for 10% of your software.
There could even be a nice graph of how much software is improved (or degraded) at each 5% bin of performance. Otherwise it's no more honest than saying that your new Ferrari is capable of speeds up to 220mph, without mentioning that this can only be utilized during .01% of your driving.
8 Core Mac today? (Score:2)
That sounds like a Mac user to me. The Article says "New systems boasting the CPU set to be announced today", and it's a Tuesday, the traditional launch day for new Macs. Do I see a pattern emerging here?
Kentsfield is not a chipset (Score:2)
In 2013... (Score:3, Funny)
Spam Scanning (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you were probably joking, but I'll open up a discussion to "whats next?" because this is something I feel the chip makers have kind of lost their way on.
First off, I'm not criticizing only AMD or Intel, I think they're both guilty of concentrating on perceived performance on desktop CPUs. They don't care how much power the chip consumes or how much heat it dissipates, they only care about what the average consumer sees as immediate performance. To me, performance can be mu
Re:whats next (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For the price, I'd rather have 2 dual Woodcrest 2.6 Mac Pros to get 8 cores...
Ahhh... if only EVERYTHING was Xgrid aware, then that would work... I'd get a pile of Minis or the Xgrid agent for Linux. Hell, After Effects can't even use all the RAM in one machine, much less Xgrid.
More processors in one box is the only thing the current incarnation of After Effects can take advantage of... with diminishing returns on the processor count as you pointed out. Our Quad G5 is not twice as fast as a Dual G5 re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will finally be able to produce in 96Khz sound without having my cpu break a sweat and begin to stagger and lose instruments/timing/audio clarity after using CPU intesive plugins like Sytrus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's still pretty scary, though. Sure, Core 2 Duo was focused on lower power consumption, but pick
Re: (Score:2)
True that -- "battery optimized/reduced performance" are nice settings to have, but still too fast -- I want an automated "just puttering on the net option" -- if photoshop isn't open, scale back to 800 MHz, underclock my video card, turn off my fans...I want 10 hours+ of life. Cryptonome was working on som
Re: (Score:2)
At work it's the same -- very few of our computers gets swapped because they're broken. Most gets swapped because it's bad business to have a $100/hour employee sitting around waiting for a computer worth $1000 to
Re:whats next (Score:5, Insightful)
They are happy with their new Dell 1.8ghz pentium M laptops and that horribly oudated and incredibly slow P4-1.8ghz processor they bought 3 years ago.
Consumers are happy now. computers have stagnated hard for the past 3-4 years and the performance gains offered by this new stuff is only marginal for them.
On video editing, I can see the advances IF your app can take advantage of it, problem is current apps cant take full advantage of that processor until a new build or version is made to take advantages of it.
The consumer yawns and happily uses their old 3 year old PC or that cheapie from dell that cost them $299 with flat panel and is as slow. They dont care about 64 bit, dual or quad core.
at least until they buy a new OS and discover that the added bloat requires more processing power to display menus and movethe mouse cursor.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty true, but inexpensive multi-core might change that.
The big issue since 2001/2002 is that processor power for a single-core CPU has only barely doubled over a period of about 4 years. Which means that a machine from 2002 feels slow, but not unbearably slow compared to a brand new single-core machine. (I should know, my laptop is almos
Re:whats next (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh really? Now I can't say as far as Intel, but AMD has been very focused on power consumption for a very long time now. All of their literature is filled with benchmarks of power-per-watt and total power savings in the data center, etc. If AMD doesn't care about power consumption, then why would they specifically go to pains to offer CPU versions that are even MORE aggressive in their power saving if you pay a bit more for them? And with all of their power saving innovation and dedication what do they get? Intel now outperforms them and everyone jumps the ship and goes over to the Intel side (despite the fact that the lower power versions of AMD's CPU still use less power when the final weight with the chipset is done).
You know why they care about what performance the average consumer sees? Because that's all consumers care about. If it were otherwise you wouldn't be seeing your lights dim when your graphics card goes into high gear. Where are the "power conscious" versions of these graphics cores?
I've got a lot of Athons, and Athlon XP's running where I work. Some burn out but that's often because of their environment and due to the fact that the fan that comes with the heatsink for the OEM version is garbage almost guaranteed to burn out after a year in high dust environments. The Pentium 4 is history, even Intel admits it was on the wrong track. If you want more longevity, then get a robust heatsink fan (undervolted) and underclock your CPU. You DO underclock your CPU right?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish there were some underclocker friendly sites... Living room pc's and sff pc's that sit on your
Power consumption (Score:2)
On Intel's side, the Core2Duo has a lower power consumption than the P4, despite having two cores. If you get the "smallest" version, the E6300, you should end up with a PC that has moderate power consumption combined with very nice performance.
AMD has recently lowered the prices on their "energy efficient" series of dual cores, and the availability has improved. If you buy an Athlon 64 EE 3800+ or an EE 4200+, you should also get a n
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know off-hand what the wattage is for the EE vs non-EE parts?
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I could be wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they care very much how much power the chip consumes, because this matters in both the server markets at the top and the laptop markets at the bottom. If I recall correctly, AMD's quadcore chip will be able to put individual cores into low power mode when they aren't needed. Of course the highest clocked AMD or Intel chips require their
New Quad Core? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Earth warming more.
Or so says
The junior Gore.
Coolness to your every pore:
Burma Shave
Re:overkill (Score:5, Informative)
Other than jumping between cores to improve heat dissipation, how do you propose to make a highly serially-dependant algorithm run on more than one core at a time? Until computers can actually make programmers redundant by writing their own code given a high-level English description of the task (and even then, you'll still have some proveably-serial code), multithreading will remain at the whim of the programmers, not the scheduler.
also why dont they just make dual-core processors faster!
For the same reason they stopped the MHz-wars and moved to a core-war in the first place... Making each core faster has started to hit physical limits (power draw and heat dissipation, electron migration in progressively smaller transistors, clock speeds limited by the speed of light across the width of the chip, etc). Make no mistake, the speed will keep creeping up over time, but the end of 18-month speed doubling ended a few years ago. Major new improvements will either involve radical new technologies (and no, spintronics and diamond substrates will only yield incremental improvements) such as quantum, or what we see now, the move toward massive parallelism.
seems the only way we are going to get ahead in the field
Gaming, while interesting, does not drive research into the highest end of computing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Made me think... just perhaps... instead of square CPUs we will see doughnut shaped ones. Scaling out more than four processors on a square die may cause heat p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be a speed limit your electronics can go at. We are pushing against some heat/size limits. The most realistic way to go faster is to split up the tasks as much as possible and have multiple piplines/cores/CPUs/Computers work on them at once.
Re: (Score:2)
What they need to do is make a Muti-Core NATIVE OS, so even single-thread apps can use more then 1 core...
There are limits to this of course. One interesting step is OS X 10.5's ability to spawn a special GPU feeder process for OpenGL apps. The idea is for some OpenGL libraries and some things that are OS functions to automatically become their own thread, running on another core, thus speeding up programs that are CPU bound but have not been reworked/recompiled to take advantage of multiple cores. At le
Re: (Score:2, Informative)