The Gigahertz Race is Back On 217
An anonymous reader writes "When CPU manufacturers ran up against the power wall in their designs, they announced that 'the Gigahertz race is over; future products will run at slower clock speeds and gain performance through the use of multiple cores and other techniques that won't improve single-threaded application performance.' Well, it seems that the gigahertz race is back on — a CNET story talks about how AMD has boosted the speed of their new Opterons to 3GHz. Of course, the new chips also consume better than 20% more power than their last batch. 'The 2222 SE, for dual-processor systems, costs $873 in quantities of 1,000, according to the Web site, and the 8222 SE, for systems with four or eight processors costs $2,149 for quantities of 1,000. For comparison, the 2.8GHz 2220 SE and 8220 SE cost $698 and $1,514 in that quantity. AMD spokesman Phil Hughes confirmed that the company has begun shipping the new chips. The company will officially launch the products Monday, he said.'"
More Power for What? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, this is cool, no doubt. How many users actually *use* how much power they already have? I use a lot, but it's mostly dependent on the graphics card.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're correct that people don't need this much power for their desktops but there are still plenty of uses for more speed in servers and for certain other applications.
Re:More Power for What? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're correct that people don't need this much power for their desktops but there are still plenty of uses for more speed in servers and for certain other applications.
Then there is the big fact that progammers these days are sloppy and waste resources. A machine that is faster than one needs today will only be adequate in 2 or 3 years given upgrades to all the programs. (Am I being cynical? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, that is something that really piss me off.
Yes, I know many times it is not the programmers fault, and they have to be sloppy to be able to meet that stupid deadline. But, c'mon. Take a look at the system resources something like Beryl uses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Power for What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Programmers are sloppy, because sloppy is all the industry wants to pay for. Way back in the day when CPU cycles were super expensive, programmers were paid better money and given the time to tweak the crap out of everything, because if they didn't, the app would run dog slow and people wouldn't buy it. The problem is that somehow, people now tolerate underperforming software. They see it as a reason to upgrade... good god, they actually fall for it! Gee I certainly remember surfing the web on a 486 with 8mb of Ram back in the day. Now my OS needs a good 50-60mb to itself, and that's after I ripped out all the cruft. Normally it would be 100mb just for sitting idle with a background image and a neon-colored task bar. Gee uh, where'd all my system resources go ? Does it really require 7.3 million bytes to house a TCP/IP stack when some embedded devices pull it off with oh, 6kb or so ?
The truth however, is that if we were to write code as tightly and meticulously as we did in the 80's and 90's, software would perform, on average, at least 5 to 10 times faster than today, excluding hard bottlenecks like disk access and network bandwidth. It would also take 50 times longer to write the software, and I'd say less than 1% of people who call themselves "programmers" are even able to write such finely tuned code. Everyone doing VB ? Out. Everyone doing RAD ? Out. All you Ruby on Rails weenies ? follow me to this dark alley *BLAM*
I remember spending hours on little loops, with a CPU reference manual and a calculator. Sometimes I did little time sketches to figure out the best way to stagger memory accesses so as to not starve the execution pipes. Often times that meant weaving two disparate functions together, one being memory-hungry, the other CPU hungry. Together they filled each other's latency pockets, and my routine ran nearly thrice faster as a result. No C compiler I've ever seen could do such kinky things. Heck one time I even wrote a little assembler demo whose code executed twice: forward, then backward. The opcodes and data were carefully selected to represent valid instructions when reversed. It was more than a nerdy trick, it allowed my routine to fit entirely in the CPU's on-die cache, which gave it a huge speed boost but more importantly, it enabled a lowly 486 to mix 48 sound channels in real-time. Today's Cubase can't even handle a couple dozen channels without stuttering and/or crashing, on computers over 100 times faster than a 486.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those apps have changed. They have to change. Nobody wants the old ones. Funny how that works, eh? A clone of Microsoft Word 2.0, which I used in high school, would be fast, efficient, adequate for virtually all usage,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
nope.
I edit 1080i HD video all day long on a incredibly old P4-3.0ghz processor.
I even render effects on it as well as CG at those resolutions and it works just fine and speedy. a 30 minute episode renders in a little over an hour to mpeg2 for airing at a TV station or for bluRay disc. The biggest thing you need in video editing is MEMORY. 4gig or more helps a lot as well as really fast U320 scsi drives.
Processor speed has a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is the power will definitely be used it just takes *years* of research to develop killer apps. Dragon Naturally speaking for instance is finally getting to a fairly usable point. The training feature is nice, while it isn't the best appl
Re:More Power for What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just shut the fuck up already. Anyone with more sense than a bag of rocks will conserve scarce resources, not plentiful ones. Clock cycles are cheap. Profiling is expensive. Megabytes are cheap. Time spent coming up with clever bithacks is expensive, especially since only the cleverest and generally highest-paid developers can do it. Second cores are cheap. More time spent coming up with whole new clever bithacks for the pentium D version because it has a different relative cost for jumps and floating point ops, thus making your last batch of hacks do more harm than good, is expensive.
Furthermore, programmers don't so much *waste* resources as utilize them to provide more value. Yeah, I know the 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, and those were some clever fellas who managed to make playable games on them. Lets see you play WoW on it. I know that your multimedia keyboard probably has more processing power than the PCjr that could once run Word. Fire up that version of Word, insert an image and a table, and hit "print preview."
Of course there are times when computing power is a precious resource. Console games that have to look awesome on 4 year old hardware. System libraries where every wasted clock will be multiplied by 2000 calls by 10000 different programs. Embedded systems where cost and size simply won't allow you to have those few extra Hz you crave. In these situations, when using extra cycles has more severe consequences than offending your sense of computational aesthetics, I believe you will find that these young whippersnappers aren't wasteful at all.
Re:More Power for What? (Score:5, Insightful)
If CPUs stayed the same power, people would write better code to improve performance.
Re:More Power for What? (Score:4, Informative)
I remember having multiple PaintShopPro files open at the same time and hearing the hard drives churning.
perhaps you need more memory? a bajillion gigawurtz won't help.
Re:More Power for What? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More Power for What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash is ridiculously inefficient, and requires an extremely beefy machine to render real-time full-screen animation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For engineering work, a CAD-dedicated card with 64MB blows away a 256MB consumer card quite easily based on my experience.
Of course, I'm talking about 3D performance, which you might not need. There are $4000 cards out there, who could possibly need to spend that much money?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only part of a computer
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I'm talking about 3D performance, which you might not need. There are $4000 cards out there, who could possibly need to spend that much money?
Those cards cost $4000 because that's what the market they are sold to will pay, not because they're doing anything a $100 card couldn't do with minor (if any) tweaking.
I get to see this kind of thing first hand, in the radiology industry. You can buy "certified" displays for $thousands, or buy off-the-shell hardware that meets all of the necessary stan
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The interesting thing about the CPU market now is that most of the workloads that really tax a general purpose CPU (and there aren't a huge number left) are the ones that perform very badly on a general purpose CPU. For home use, something like one of TI's ARM cores wi
Re: (Score:2)
Given the price tradeoff between a powerful server and just having powerful clients, it makes a lot of sense to use all the desktops in the office as a render farm.
Re:More Power for What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm refering to Kandid [sourceforge.net]... To top it off the dam thing isn't even in vectorized.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume we're talking casual consumers and not pro users. Well, it's not really up to them, their software will bloat up to take whatever CPU "volume" there is and take all of it in the next version.
At a first glance Photoshop 4 isn't THAT much simpler than Photoshop 10. But it's plenty times faster for all basic operations both support. Wonder how that h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More Power for What? (Score:5, Informative)
If Fedora users who are KDE fans are lucky and I remember Fedora's release cycle right, Fedora 8 should be out around late October or November...
You'd be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
E.g., sure, we like to use the stereotypical old mom as an example of someone who only sends emails to the kids and old friends. Unfortunately it's false. It was true in the 90's, but now digital cameras are everywhere and image manipulation software is very affordable. And so are the computers which can do it. You'd be suprised the kind of heavy-duty image processing mom does on hundreds of pictures of squirrels and geese and whatever was in the park on that day.
And _video_ processing isn't too far out of reach either. It's a logical next step too: if you're taking pictures, why not short movies? Picture doing the same image processing on some thousands of frames in a movie instead of one still pictures.
E.g., software development. Try building a large project on an old 800 MHz slot-A Athlon, with all optimizations on, and then tell me I don't need a faster CPU. Plus, nowadays IDEs aren't just dumb editors with a "compile" option in the menus any more. They compile and cross-reference classes all the time as you type.
E.g., games, since you mention the graphics card. Yeah, ok, at the moment most games are just a glorified graphics engine, and mostly just use the CPU to pump the triangles to the graphics card. Well that's a pretty poor model, and the novelty of graphics alone is wearing off fast.
How about physics? They're just coming into fashion, and fast. Yeah, we make do at the moment with piss-poor approximations, like Oblivion's bump-into-a-table-and-watch-plates-fly-off-superso nic engine. There's no reason we couldn't do better.
How about AI? Already in X2 and X3 (the space sim games) it doesn't only simulate the enemies around you, but also what happens in the sectors where your automated trade or patrol ships are. I want to see that in more games.
Or how about giving good AI to city/empire building games? Tropico already simulated up to 1000 little people in your city, going around their daily lives, making friends, satisfying their needs, etc. Not just doing a dumb loop, like in Pharaoh or Caesar 3, but genuinely trying to solve the problem of satisfying their biggest need at the moment: e.g., if they're hungry, they go buy food (trekking across the whole island if needed), if they're sick, they go to a doctor, etc. I'd like to see more of that, and more complex at that.
Or let's have that in RPGs, for that matter. Oblivion for example made a big fuss about how smart and realistic their AI is... and it wasn't. But the hype it generated does show that people care about that kind of thing. So how about having games with _big_ cities, not just 4-5 houses, but cities with 1000-2000 inhabitants, which are actually smart. Let's have not just a "fame" and "infamy" rating, let's have people who actually have a graph of aquaintances and friends, and actually gradually spread the rumours. (I.e., you're not just the guy with 2 points infamy, but it's a question of which of your bad deeds did this particular NPC hear about.) Let's not have omniscient guards that teleport, but actually have witnesses calculate a path and run to inform the guards, and lead them to the crime. Etc.
Or how about procedurally generated content? The idea of creating whole cities, quests and whatnot procedurally isn't a new one, but unfortunately it tends to create boring repetition at the moment. (See Daggerfall or Morrowind.) How about an AI complex enough to generate reasonably interesting stuff. E.g., not just recombine blocks, but come up with a genuinely original fortress from the ground up, based on some constraints. E.g., how about generating whole story arcs? It's not impossible, it's just very hard.
And if you need to ask "why?", let's just say: non-linear stories. Currently if you want, for example, to play a light side and a dark side, someone has to code two different arcs, although most players will only see one or the other. If you add more points and ways you can branch the story (e.g.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You'd be surprised (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things possible when the horsepower is there.
Re:You'd be surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Havok physics engine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a computer could write a convincing dynamic game plot, it could write a decent novel, and that's a loooong way off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I had in mind was more Bayesian. You know, in much the same way you can get a computer trained to translate texts by feeding it texts and translations (Google is doing just that), one could feed it various gaming situations from a enough testers to have it learn all sorts of stuff. E.g., to recognize when a game flew off the hook in your description, or is about to fly off the hook, or what si
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your thinking. It is not about using 100% of the 'power'. It is about the definition of how much power '100%' is. We all hit 100% during intensive operations, but to a lesser extent if the power is exceedingly efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is discussing 2-way, 4-way, and 8-way Opteron CPUs for servers. I don't know about you, but with all the virtualization going on nowadays, more computing power in the same size box is a good thing. We can use all the power we can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is cool, no doubt. How many users actually *use* how much power they already have? I use a lot, but it's mostly dependent on the graphics card.
Time and again, Intel and AMD come out with new, faster processors, and every time some bozo like you feels the need to say the same stupid thing: "who needs this much computing power on the desktop?" Time and again, someone like me has to post the same damn reply:
You are not the market for this. The desktop is not the market for this. Games are not the end-all be-all of high-intensity computation. In a more general sense, progress just fucking progresses. Are you saying AMD and Intel should just market
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or would you rather go back to the days of 100Mhz processors?
Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
I muchly prefer a fanless processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Had the wall not been hit, and GHz continued to increase as in the 90s, we'd be up to someting like 20 GHz by now. So the truth of this story is the exact opposite of "The Gigahertz Race is Back On." RAM and HDD capacity and price are relatively stagnant for the last few years, too. The only thing still growing by leaps and bounds is flash memory.
Re:Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
To understand how this is not a sign of slacking off by the chip designers, you have to understand that the P4 was able to run at high clock speeds only because it was designed to use a very long pipeline of small functional units. This design has proven to be inefficient because it causes too many pipeline stalls and because it requires a higher clock speed and higher power consumption to achieve the same performance. The more complicated functional units of chips with shorter pipelines cannot be clocked as fast, but they perform better at the achievable clock rates than the P4 did at higher clock rates. The last Gigahertz race was ended by a shift of architecture, not by "hitting a wall". Then came multicore designs, which further reduced the need and opportunity for higher clock rates (heat dissipation is somewhat of a "wall"). All this caused clock rates to grow much slower. Now that chip designers have found ways to control power consumption, increasing the clock rate is viable again, so the race is back on.
Re: (Score:2)
The NetBurst architecture was noting but Intel's response to hitting the MHz wall. Intel wanted to continue ramping up MHz which in the past had corresponded very well with overall performance and was thus important to consumers. But because they were starting to
misleading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, AMD has started to release overclocked processors which increase the speed at the expense of power consumption, but with no R&D cost at all. I now totally cannot remember what the first news piece was.
Re: (Score:2)
4 Is more than the maximum simulataneous tasks I've ever needed to complete in a hurry.
Game desginers are still churning out games not properly optomized for multi-threading, so the faster single cores still perform better on them (Dual cores are actually a bit slower, especially for AMD), once they stop that then no one will care about how fast each co
Re: (Score:2)
One core that can perform two billion operations per second will always be better than two cores that can each perform one billion ops/sec. Well, unless each core has its own memory controller and there's NUMA trickery going on.
The reason we're seeing multi-core processors is that Moore's Law is continuing, but it's not possible to turn a doubling in transistors into a doubling of single-core performance. You get tradeoffs like "add a second core OR add some cache and increase speed by a factor of four on
Gigahertz a bad thing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gigahertz a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing the whole point. CPU performances are increasing all the time, which allows Microsoft to continue making everything slower. However, the GHz race had little to do with performance; Intel pushed their Pentium 4 closer to 4 GHz, even if it performed slower than many competing CPUs between 2 and 3 GHz. They probably did it because most consumers would only look at raw GHz instead of performance.
Re: (Score:2)
A-ha! Finally the truth comes out! The massive, worldwide adoption of computers is *actually* a global job creation program!
No, really, think about it.
What race? (Score:2)
Slows news day? When people announced GHz race is over they didn't mean that they'll only decrease the clockrate didn't they? Both Intel and AMD still bump the clock rate up on further developments of their models, but we should expect that we'll be seeing chips in the range of 1 GHz - 3.8 GHz and no higher than this.
There no effin GHz race.
Rev up, don't shift (Score:2)
How about a bit more than just 8 registers? Maybe a bit more "distributed computing" inside the machine, with more than just outsourcing the graphics to a GPU, maybe a chip dedicated to memory or interrupt handling? I dunno, personally it feels
Re:Rev up, don't shift (Score:5, Informative)
AMD64 has 16 registers
AMD seems to be working on putting a GPU in ther CPU
Memory used to be managed by a dedicated chip -- the northbridge. But AMD moved it into the CPU because it was faster that way.
The APIC? But anyway, the slow part of interrupt handling is done in the OS kernel, which runs on the CPU. So I'm not sure how much a chip would help there.
I'm not an expert, but my guess is that because computers are all-purpose devices. Specialized hardware can accelerate something like encryption or audio mixing, but there doesn't seem to be all that much of that sort of thing that's still worth accelerating. Most people don't need to encrypt the huge amounts of data that would make a dedicated accelerator make much of a difference. Notice also how now almost nobody buys sound cards anymore, because you can just mix sound in hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess hardcore gamers and audiophiles would disagree.
Dedicated soundcards have 2 advantages over letting CPU handle the task: Less CPU load (yes, that doesn't matter in normal applications, but since games stress the CPU to the limit anyway you'll want that task in a dedicated device) and sound quality, which is again often due to "good" sound being actually quite a bit of load on whatever piece of hardw
Re: (Score:2)
Some time ago, Creative intimidated John Carmack into supporting EAX in Doom 3 [slashdot.org]. This is yet another reason why I don't use Creative hardware anymore. The SB Live cards causing disk corruption with VIA boards, drivers being unstable on SMP (this was before dual core) and them taking drivers off their site for some time are some others.
But anyway, why do you think Creative had to basically force John Carmack to support their EAX tech? Apparently because Doom 3
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got an absolutely horrendous MIDI implementation then. The GameBoy Advance, with it's 16.7 MHz ARM7, is capable of handling 8 channels of MIDI at about 30% CPU usage. On a modern processor, MIDI should take essentially no power.
Last time I looked into dedicated sound cards (the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back on? I say not.. (Score:2)
No, I don't think so. It's just that AMD pushed the clock frequency for this CPU, but that works becuase it was just up to 3 GHz.
Watch me be right when they don't continue to push that generation to clock speeds 3x higher or so like they could in the past.
Misleading info (Score:2)
This is misleading. No one gave up improving the performance of single-threaded apps.
All new chips are striving to improve the performance of each core by packing more executed commands per cpu cycle. This is achieved with better branch prediction, concurrent execution of commands that are in principle serial (this is possible
Re: (Score:2)
AMD is desperate (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, Intel was chumped by AMD just like this a couple of years ago, why did AMD let themselves get tagged back? Intel woke up in a major way. Can AMD? Doesn't look too good...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AMD is desperate (Score:5, Interesting)
Not so. AMD never said that they wouldn't increase clock speed on their CPUs. In fact, that's pretty much standard practice to get higher performance. So now their manufacturing process is capable of producing 3 GHz CPUs in sufficient volumes to sell, and they're selling them. As the process is refined there may be faster CPUs.
Intel does the same thing. As the manufacturing process is refined they are able to produce more and more CPUs at higher clock speeds. It's not a sign of anything other than business as usual.
Funny, Intel was chumped by AMD just like this a couple of years ago, why did AMD let themselves get tagged back? Intel woke up in a major way. Can AMD? Doesn't look too good...
AMD has more than just clock speed coming, Barcelona (aka K10) is supposed to be shipping in the next month or two. That's generally expected to take back the performance crown from Intel, and even if it doesn't it should at least eliminate the performance gap. For purposes of historical reference, AMD pretty much bitchslapped Intel when they released the Athlon 64. It took Intel 4 years to finally catch up to AMD and pass them with the Core 2 architecture, and even today the Opterons are still higher performers on 4 and 8 processor systems. If Barcelona turns out to be as fast as or faster than Core 2 (and by all rights, it should be) then it will have taken them only 1 year to catch up. Conroe was "previewed" at Spring IDF in 2006, but didn't ship until several months later.
As for why it's taken AMD a year to catch up, it takes quite a long time to design, layout, test, and debug a new CPU. Once all that is done the manufacturing process has to be designed and tested too. Then the CPUs have to actually be produced, and once production has started it takes almost 2 months to go from silicon wafers to functioning CPUs. However, something to keep in mind is that Intel is a much, much larger company than AMD and that Intel runs severals CPU design teams concurrently, while AMD doesn't. Intel has several times the number of designers, engineers, and fabs that AMD does. Because of their resources, Intel is able to completely scrap a CPU project and switch to something else if they need to. AMD can't, or at least not without seriously hurting the company. The fact that AMD is even competitive with Intel says quite a lot about the talent they have in-house.
The thing that I find most interesting was that last year when Intel was on the ropes, they offered the IDF preview to select web sites in order to generate buzz and FUD regarding Intel vs. AMD. And it worked too, because for 3 months everybody was talking about how Intel was king again even though they still hadn't shipped any Conroe CPUs. This year they're doing the same thing with their new Penryn architecture, and they don't appear to be on the ropes. Why would you tip your hand early if you don't have to? That indicates to me that Intel is concerned about something, and I suspect that something is Barcelona.
Even more interesting is that none of the previews compare Conroe with Penryn at the same clock speed. Most of the benchmarks that I have seen show a roughly 20% performance advantage for Penryn. But the Penryn CPU was running at about 14% higher clock speed, a 25% higher FSB, and with 50% more L2 cache onboard. Now who's playing the Gigahertz Game? I suspect that if you overclocked a Conroe and it's FSB to reach the same speeds, you probably would see little to no difference with Penryn. Which means that Intel's response to the all-new Barcelona is going to be...you guessed it...run up the clock speed and slap on some cache, because we're in for a bumpy ride.
Re:AMD is desperate (Score:4, Insightful)
Moving to 45nm gives you extra headroom for clock speed, extra transistor budget, etc. So they might just be demoing systems with similar power envelopes/cost/whatever.
Throw some SSE4 enabled apps in the mix and the Penryn would outperform an equalized Conroe by a fair margin.
One simple thing would put AMD back into the ring (Score:2)
When AMD came out with Socket A it was such a relief to know you are safe to know that your hardware will fit be it in economy, business or first class. If they'd ditch their socket confusion, people would turn to AMD simply for easy o
Re:One simple thing would put AMD back into the ri (Score:2)
Herr Ober! Er gibt eine Fliege in meiner Suppe.
Genau? Was macht Sie?
Gar nichts. Ich glaube dass sie gestorben ist.
Re: (Score:2)
Er gibt
Es gibt.
Lame Advertisement (Score:2)
Irrelevant for most desktop users (Score:2)
Show me 5GHZ at least, then the race is back on... (Score:2)
Re:Show me 5GHZ at least, then the race is back on (Score:3, Interesting)
Here you are [wikipedia.org].
somebodys is panicing (Score:2)
It seems for all practicle reasons, the speed war is dead and will stay that way baring major change in chip material.
Vista needs fast hardware (Score:2)
Really says a lot on what happens when you let a monopoly like Microsoft exist, and dictate what utter garbage you will use.
Cheers
2.5Ghz - 3Ghz a race? (Score:3, Insightful)
RAM & Programming is what is missing NOT CPU (Score:3, Interesting)
I read many comments about graphic editing. Being that hardly a day goes by where I don't do some graphic editing I think I am qualified to respond to this. The synergy lab at my University, where I am pursuing my Masters in Computer Science, has a Dual Power Mac with 2 Intel dual core 2.66 Ghz CPUs but only has 1 Gigabyte of RAM. At home I have a Dual Power Mac G4 with 2 800 Mhz CPU. I am not trying to argue here that the IBM 970 processors are superior to the Intel, though they may well be (lol), but I have 4 Gigabytes of RAM in my home system. I am way more productive working on my home system due to the increased memory it has. Graphic editing by nature is a RAM intensive process. If I were going to buy a new system that would be dedicated to graphic editing I would first spend my budgeted amount of money on making sure the system had the maximum amount of RAM (16 Gigabytes currently) before I gave any thought to the processor(s) for such a system.
Also, many people mentioned either directly or indirectly processes that simulate AI. I make a point of saying "simulate" because our society has yet to produce any software that can come close to claiming to contain any AI. This is not a problem that can be solved by increased CPU or RAM or any other system resource. The #1 problem that plagues any currently developed program in their attempts to simulate AI is that our society has not developed a strong enough knowledge base of intelligence itself to understand how to write code that gives any acceptable level of simulation of it. If Intel where to release a 500 THz CPU tomorrow there would be no significant increase in real or simulated AI. Though, with enough CPU speed and RAM it might be possible one day to create a tree (data structure) that contains all the possible moves for a game of chess which would allow a computer to play a perfect game of chess this would not be an application of AI, although at one time people believed that chess was an application of AI, we have now realized that this is not the case and if a computer did have the complete tree for the game of chess, a significant accomplishment, it would simply be an application of brute force. I have yet to see any application of AI (again real or simulated) that faced against a human opponent can compete at a level that would challenge the human. Again, this is due to basic lack of understanding and programming skill rather than a lack of processing power. IMHO, that someday man may gain enough understanding and programming skill to not only simulate but actually program AI. When I think of this possibility I imagine it will be one of those eureka moments rather than a slow progression based upon our current study of AI. At best we are currently guessing and hoping that we might stumble on something than can simulate AI and even with all the computing power available in the world I do not believe we would be any further along.
If anything an increase in hardware performance be it CPU, RAM, or whatnot that increase is generally proceeded by more and more inefficient code. Why make your code more efficient when the lack of performance in your programs can easily be overcome by ever increasing system resources?
I remember when one had to upgrade their computer each year to be able to continue to have a viable system. Long gone are those days. I have had my primary system for nearly 7 years now. I will need to upgrade soon but not because my system is lacking in hardware performance but because of the scenario I described above in which programmers continue to use system hardware as a crutch. If some physical limitation were to present itself that prevented the creation of faster CPUs by either increased clock cycles or additional cores then programmers would adapt and we would cont
Re:NO NO NO NO NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NO no NO no NO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NO NO NO NO NO (Score:5, Informative)
For desktops, most of Intel's newer Core 2 Duo processors have an average thermal dissipation of 65 watts. The fastest Core 2 Duo, the 2.93 GHz X6800, has a 75-watt average TDP. The quad-core chips range from 105 watts for the 2.40 GHz Q6600 to the 130-watt QX6700. These chips have a very reduced version of the SpeedStep that Intel puts in its laptop chips. The lowest core speed of the 800 MHz FSB chips is 1.20 GHz and 1.6 GHz for the 1066 MHz FSB chips. AMD's current new desktop processors start from a maximum thermal dissipation of 35 watts for the single-core Sempron EE and go up to 45 watts for the Athlon 64 single-cores (Lima), 65 watts for the Athlon 64 X2 models from the 3600+ to the 5200+, 89 watts for the 5400+ and 5600+, and 125 watts for the X2 6000+ and FX-70 series. The AMD chips all clock down to 1 GHz at idle. AMD also rates the chips on their absolute maximum thermal dissipation rather than an average thermal dissipation like Intel does, so a 65 watt AMD chip will usually end up drawing less power than an Intel 65-watt chip. The AMD chips also draw significantly less power at idle due to their lower clock speed.
The scenario is much the same for servers. AMD has their High Efficieny line of dual-core chips that draw 68 watts, the normal line that draws 95 watts, and the SE line that draws 125 watts. Intel has a few low-voltage Xeons, but those are very uncommon and pretty much limited to blade server vendors. AMD sells its Opteron HEs through a wide range of vendors.
Re: (Score:2)
(Also, power performance isn't as clear cut as that. Under load the Core 2 beats the Athlons handily but AMD has lower idle draw. Depending on the work load typical power draw can go either way.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should, but we're talking about consumers here, so they wo