The 4 Core CPU, Overkill?

[Ghostrider]

After reading the replies regarding Quad-Core vs Single Core vs Dual Core and the 'overhead' and 'disadvantages' that come with more than one core, I found a very nice demonstration that will let you all know how much better multi-core processing can really be.

Just read the very small article and watch the video demonstration.
Please notice that, no matter how fast a Single Core CPU can be, it will be impossible for it to run (at all) the simulation that's being shown...where streaming, seamless changes, and 100% dynamic and volumetric light are only some of the features being shown.

Link:
http://www.siliconvalleysleuth.com/2...shows_off.html


-Ghost

[dizzy]

I've seen this before, looks pretty bad ass, but it was a demo by Intel so

Anyway this has nothing to do with what i was saying that yes Dual / Quad help improve speed b/c you have 4 cpus to do work at 5 ghz each, but they are 100% used so a single core of 20 Ghz would be better, but it just doesn't exist so thats why Dual/Quad is the future. At least until CPU makers come up with a new way to make CPUs (ie. on diamonds)

[Ghostrider]

More accurate information regarding Multicore Processing:


Advantages

• Proximity of multiple CPU cores on the same die have the advantage that the cache coherency circuitry can operate at a much higher clock rate than is possible if the signals have to travel off-chip, so combining equivalent CPUs on a single die significantly improves the performance of cache snoop (alternative: Bus snooping) operations.
• Assuming that the die can fit into the package, physically, the multi-core CPU designs require much less Printed Circuit Board (PCB) space than multi-chip SMP designs.
• A dual-core processor uses slightly less power than two coupled single-core processors, principally because of the increased power required to drive signals external to the chip and because the smaller silicon process geometry allows the cores to operate at lower voltages; such reduction reduces latency. Furthermore, the cores share some circuitry, like the L2 cache and the interface to the front side bus (FSB).
• In terms of competing technologies for the available silicon die area, multi-core design can make use of proven CPU core library designs and produce a product with lower risk of design error than devising a new wider core design. Also, adding more cache suffers from diminishing returns.

Disadvantages

• In addition to operating system (OS) to support, adjustments to existing software are required to maximize utilization of the computing resources provided by multi-core processors. Also, the ability of multi-core processors to increase application performance depends on the use of multiple threads within applications. For example, most current (2006) video games will run faster on a 3 GHz single-core processor than on a 2GHz dual-core, despite the dual-core theoretically having more processing power, because they are incapable of efficiently using more than one core at a time.
• Integration of a multi-core chip drives production yields down and they are more difficult to manage thermally than lower-density single-chip designs.
• From an architectural point of view, ultimately, single CPU designs may make better use of the silicon surface area than multiprocessing cores, so a development commitment to this architecture may carry the risk of obsolescence.
• Raw processing power is not the only constraint on system performance. Two processing cores sharing the same system bus and memory bandwidth limits the real-world performance advantage. If a single core is close to being memory bandwidth limited, then going to dual-core might only give 30% to 70% improvement. If memory-bandwidth is not a problem you might get a 90% improvement. It would be possible for an application that used 2 CPUs to end up running faster on one dual-core if communication between the CPUs was the limiting factor, which would count as more than 100% improvement.

Note that in the disadvantages list, the worst case scenario (when cpu is memory-bandwidth limited) is ~30% improvement...if that is not an issue, you can get 90%+ in performance improvement.

EDIT: Software benefits from multicore architectures where code can be executed in parallel. Under most common operating systems this requires code to execute in separate threads. Each application running on a system runs in its own thread so multiple applications will benefit from multicore architectures. Each application may also have multiple threads but must be specifically written to do so. Operating system software also tends to run many threads as a part of its normal operation. Running virtual machines will benefit from adoption of multiple core architectures since each virtual machine runs independently of others and can be executed in parallel.


Source Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicore

[Ghostrider]

Originally Posted by [PIT]dizzy

I've seen this before, looks pretty bad ass, but it was a demo by Intel so

Yes, it does look pretty good. Can't wait

Originally Posted by [PIT]dizzy

AAt least until CPU makers come up with a new way to make CPUs (ie. on diamonds)

In fact, since the CPU isn't the bottleneck (the system is) there's research being done to shift internal system communication from electricity to light by using lasers, since light travels way faster than electricity..so no diamonds that you can take out from your new system and sell them on the black market


-Ghost

[Griffon2-6]

That video is just too 1337. I thought it was real at first untill I saw the way the guy's arms moved. Damn, that must be very high resolution. That video gives me deja vu of a place I went to. But I bet the actual map size is around the size of a Highway 17 segment from Half Life 2. What would be impressive would be a New York sized map at that resolution. Now that would be 1337n355.

[dizzy]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ghostrider

In fact, since the CPU isn't the bottleneck (the system is) there's research being done to shift internal system communication from electricity to light by using lasers, since light travels way faster than electricity..so no diamonds that you can take out from your new system and sell them on the black market


-Ghost

I thought i heard something about that, if you have any links drop them in this thread please.

As to the diamonds I meant as a CPU platform instead of silicon to help increase the speed of the actual CPU. This goes back to what you said earlier about heat (which I guess is a bigger problem than i thought previously). A diamond could run at like 250(c) where as a silicon chip would stop working after about 100(c)

And my point in bringing this up of course is to say if we have an 80 GHz single core CPU it would be better than your 10 core 8Ghz CPU

81GHz diamond semiconductor created
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0827021485.htm

More stuff
http://www.google.com/search?q=diamonds+on+CPU

[trogdor1289]

http://www.alanwake.com/movies.html
Following up on that Remedy vid these are straight movies not taken from a screen. Makes me wish I could afford a multi-core system like that.