Quad Core Chips From Intel and AMD 412
lubricated writes "According to the San Fransisco Chronicle, in an effort to one-up AMD, Intel will be coming out with 4 core cpu's in 2007." From the article: "Chips with two cores have been the latest rage, with both Intel and AMD selling those microprocessors as their high-end offering. Apple Computer Inc.'s new iMac, which started selling last month, uses the dual-core chip ... Not to be outdone, Randy Allen, AMD's corporate vice president of server and workstation division, said Friday that his firm is working its own quad-core processor for release next year."
The new race (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The new race (Score:4, Interesting)
Really. It does seem that there's only so much that can be done to increase the clock. I hope this gives an impetus to improve multi-CPU software performance.
Re:The new race (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but there is the problem. With the Gigahertz race, you were sure to be able to enjoy the benefit. With multiple cores, you need software able to use these cores, am I wrong (I'm not really sure of what I'm talking about)? And so far we can't always fully exploit these multiple cores, am I wrong?
Re:The new race (Score:4, Insightful)
I really think in the "megahertz" race we didn't really enjoy the benefits in all areas of software. vi, emacs, text editor x don't really benifit from 3GHz over 333MHz. Someone who just pops open Word or Word Perfect and an email client doesn't benifit from something zoom zoom high GHz.
On that note, quite a few things on OS X work better for CPU/usage on a pair of slower CPUs than on one fast CPU.
Re:The new race (Score:2, Insightful)
What you just said reminds me of something I read before, it was something like "Computers in 93 used to run Word as fast as on "I really think in the "megahertz" race we didn't really enjoy the benefits in all areas of software. vi, emacs, text editor x don't really benifit from 3GHz over 333MHz."
Suuure. It didn't benefit much for NetHack neither, but what kind of improvement can y
Re:The new race (Score:2, Insightful)
The point was that, if your computer had twice as much MHz, basically, you could make let's say twice as many multiplications in as many time. But if you have a quad-core CPU, given the same amount of GHz, you will only be able to make 4 time as many multiplications if your software is written for using those 4 cores,
Re:The new race (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The new race (Score:2)
Other apps get an entire core to themselves, while the O/S and background tasks run on the other cores. This makes for a snappier system because the UI threads aren't competing for CPU time on a clogged CPU.
Re:The new race (Score:3, Interesting)
The rational for multi-core CPU's is that 4 slow cores can do the same amount of work as a fast single core system and consume less power. A related rationale is that you can't get a single core system that
Re:The new race (Score:2)
Not necessarily, which is to say, not at all. If all you use your computer for is one CPU-intensive thing (games or rendering or Mathematica), then yes you won't get all the benefit. But computers today run so many tasks simultaneously (one per window, plus init, swapper, inetd, cron, lockd, statd, X server, plus whatever else you're doing) that you'll get some benefit regardless what you run. I still have issues occasionally when my XP box a
Re:The new race (Score:5, Insightful)
The main mistake I think people are making is the idea of having each thread do something different, e.g. one thread for graphics and one for AI. To harness a large number of cores equally, we need libaries which divide up big repetitive tasks (say, collision detection or matrix multiplication) into a large number of chunks. Of course you can't write heavily procedural logic that way, (say, a word processor), but for the most part that stuff runs fast enough on one core anyways.
Good for SGI and Sun. (Score:2, Interesting)
IRIX and Solaris are known to scale far beyond 4 processors. They're proven technologies that are known to work very well on multiprocessored systems.
SGI could easily use this to their advantage, releasing affordable systems that offer the benefit of IRIX on such machines. If they can come out
Well, it _would_ be... (Score:2)
Octacore (Score:4, Interesting)
Sun Microsystems is shipping 8 core CPUs (Score:5, Informative)
Both Solaris and AIX scale over 100 CPUs already. Good luck AMD and Intel on getting Microsoft to create a standard OS (not their funny datacenter version) that is the same on 1 CPU or 124 CPU systems.
SGI is about to go belly up (Score:2)
SGI and Sun aren't the winners here, I think....
Re:SGI is about to go belly up (Score:2)
They shouldn't because they are already well beyond that with their Datacenter Edition:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732/en-us [microsoft.com]
Obligatory... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Windows represents CPUs using the bits in a machine word. On 64-bit hardware, you're limited to 64 CPUs. This is exposed in the ABI. Not that Windows would scale well for such a system, of course.
Apple seems to be behind as well.
OS isn't everything (Score:2)
Re:OS isn't everything (Score:2)
Virtualisation.
Re:Good for SGI and Sun. (Score:5, Insightful)
IRIX and Solaris are known to scale far beyond 4 processors.
So does almost every other OS. Linux scales to 1000s of processors, in IBMs supercomputers. Windows 2003 Datacenter supports 64 processors (Which is more than enough for a regular commercial application. In case you want more, instead of scaling up, you should be scaling OUT.) AIX, HP-UX etc also have great support.
If they can come out with a system that appeals to developers and business users, then they could take on Apple, Sun, Dell and others again
SGI competing with APPLE and DELL???? In what segment, but in the figment of your imagination?
SGI?? They lost $100m in 2004, $72m in 2005. They are nearly _dead_ and looking for a sell-out. In many ways they deserve it, I still remember their CD drive being priced 10 times higher than the ones in the market if you wanted to replace one. And of course, being totally proprietary nothing else would fit in. Who is buying IRIX now? And SGI now focuses on Linux.
I don't know who modded you interesting. And I did not know SGI still had fans!
Re:The new race (Score:2)
As someone that designs algorithms this is something I look forward to with much excitement.
I for one welcome our new kilo-core overlords.
Re:The new race (Score:2)
Re:The new race (Score:2)
Seriously, how much power will they consume?
Says something about the seemingly endless advance (Score:2)
There have been many "the end is near" predictions over the decades, and none have come true. However, when the manufacturers start turning out dual and now quad core commodity parts, you really have to assume that a reasonably solid wall has been hit for once.
Though I have faith there are still depths in silicon to be plumbed
Each core should be different (Score:2)
On my home computers, my cpu utilization is minimal. The biggest bottleneck is I/O.
I'm waiting for a reasonable cost computer that can drive multiple wireless lcd touchscreen display
Multi-cores (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Multi-cores (Score:5, Funny)
wtf is an ebay computer and why would it need a fast processor?
Re:Multi-cores (Score:5, Funny)
(a) he's running a truly awesome amount of auction management and/or sniping software for a whole bunch of auctions, or
(b) he's running eBay.
Re:Multi-cores (Score:2)
Oh that's a load of rich, creamery butter.
Re:Multi-cores (Score:2)
Under Windows it will only use one of the cores for most operations (a small number of programs can use both). Linux SMP kernels will split up the tasks for the two processors as best as it can, supposedly Solaris and the BSDs will do it too but I've never seen those guys at work.
Be more concerned about the bus (Score:4, Insightful)
It's almost comical how the Slash community seems to be so back and forth over which chip is "best". Cart meet horse. Get behind, thee!
So. I am a bit of an AMD fanboi. I admit it. But it's not really about the chip. It's the IO fabric. Hypertransport (which does happen to be on chip) is why AMD is winning this race right now. It's affordable, and scales linearly with the number of chips. Around the corner on AMD's front is HORUS (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18251 [theinquirer.net]), the memory fabric to rule them all. Intel should be really afraid here.
I personally can't get all excited about these multi core chips. Now IO solutions. Those interest me.
Computers are entirely IO bound these days. Hello?
Do any Slashdot readers happen to be home in there!?
*knockety knock*
C//
Re:Multi-cores (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on your architecture, really. Intel chips might be hurt because of their sharing an external memory controller. AMD chips would experience little or no performance penalty, because they have the memory controller on-die, and the chance of two cores accessing the same memory address is small.
/*Adobe premiere recognizes the dual core during startup but I don't know of many programs that
Having multiple cores ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except it's quite useless with front wheel drive.
Re:Having multiple cores ... (Score:2)
Except when you're driving in the snow.
What I really meant to say is WTF kind of analogy is that?
FWD, like RWD has its pros/cons and each has its place.
Do you even know why FWD was such a god-send back when it was first introduced? It was easier to manufacture & install in cars, it provided better handling characteristics for the vast majority of drivers (oversteer will fuck up
Re:Having multiple cores ... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's like having multiple cylinders inside an engine.
Actually, they were outdone.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Actually, they were outdone.. (Score:2)
But have they demonstrated working quad-core CPUs the way Intel did in TFA? I think an "announcement" is more impressive if they can demonstrate at least a working prototype. From TFA:
BTW, Cloverton [endian.net] is based on the Merom/Co
Re:Actually, they were outdone.. (Score:2)
I don't know - that sort of demonstration is completely useless, since there's no way to verify if the demo CPUs are ready for mass production, cool enough for prolonged use, or even whether or not they're faster than dual-core CPUs.
I'm sure there are a few G5 Powerbook "prototypes" laying around at Apple HQ. Clearly, that doesn't t
Re:Actually, they were outdone.. (Score:2)
Re:Actually, they were outdone.. (Score:2)
When will Microsoft change its license? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When will Microsoft change its license? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, this does not really eat into MS bottom line compared to Oracle or IBM. Most of MS revenue comes from the the desktop, while they are just competing in servers. Sql Server suddenly becomes more attractive, given Oracles complicated multi-core policy [sun.com]. (Remember that Oracle earlier announced that every core is a CPU, its just recently that they realized it will be a disaster and modified their original plans.)
Earlier CPU speeds doubled every 18 months. Multi-core will simply take another approach to achieving the same. I am not sure how this will hurt software companies any more than increasing cycles/sec.
Re:When will Microsoft change its license? (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, but why would they? They'll just bloat the OS so it eats up enough CPU to require a multi-multicore chip setup for serious server performance.
Re:When will Microsoft change its license? (Score:2)
As I recall, earlier there was some confusion about Microsoft's license agreements regarding the core vs. CPU issue in terms of licensing. Microsoft came out and explicitly stated that it was going to charge per CPU.
It's like razorblades (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's like razorblades (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's like razorblades (Score:2)
Does this make you the Grammer Nazi?
Re:It's like razorblades (Score:2)
The plural of CPU is CPUs. The plural of C.P.U. is C.P.U.'s.
Re:It's like razorblades (Score:2)
The pluralization of an acronym (a lazy man's construct) is purely based on common convention, and the use of an apostrophe is optional. After all, you've just dropped the word in favor of its leading letter, so why concern yourself with the trailing letter which could arguably be implied by context and included in the drop?
If you're frought with concern over using the correct plural form, just use the actual word instead or rewrite the sentence to not require a plural s
Re:It's like razorblades (Score:2)
Re:It's like razorblades (Score:2)
The guy you were complaining about might be from China and highly intelligent. How good is your Chinese?
You better start practicing now though so that your Chinese is perfect by the time it becomes the dominant language on the Internet.
Re:Also OT... (Score:2)
In othe news... (Score:4, Funny)
Le-Yawn..... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29550 [theinquirer.net]
Want to know what the problem is? Near the bottom here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25349 [theinquirer.net]
(Yes, I know I spelled it wrong, it was a verbal tip....)
-Charlie
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Not to be outdone by AMD, Gellete releases a 5 core Razor.
Per-core memory controller? (Score:2)
Chip H.
Re:Per-core memory controller? (Score:2)
AMD pulls it off with their DirectConnect architecture...
Bandwidth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bandwidth (Score:3, Informative)
The quad-core chip that Intel demoed in TFA, code name Cloverton [endian.net], is derived from the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest architecture (which is derived from Yonah/Core Duo). It is not derived from the current bandwidth-starved Xeon core (Netburst/Pentium 4).
I agree that the comparison between du
A quad system bus of some kind would help more (Score:5, Informative)
Software performance is bound by I/O limitations. It FEELS like processor power because threads on hold for I/O block a core up like cheescake to a lactose intollerant grandparent.
Until I can index on disk at about 100 times the current speed, these processors won't help what I'm doing.
Re:A quad system bus of some kind would help more (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep a dual-CPU Opteron system pretty busy most days and I'll be upgrading to a dual-CPU dual-core system once prices drop a bit more.
The one thing I don't do, is video transcoding... (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither of these tasks is important for a desktop user. Large software compil
ah, I'm too slow. It seems they already exist (Score:2)
Presumably, you get some kind of software driver to talk to with your own software so you can feed it the time domain in real time and get back blocks of frequency domain data without burdening your processor.
If you're doing serious scientific analysis on live analog data streams (SETI anyone?) this would really help you out a lot. I'd bet one of these could really jump your SETI@HOME scores up pretty quickly.
http://www.eg3.com/WebID/dsp/fft/ [eg3.com]
Not to quibble, but I think that depends.... (Score:2)
Dual core systems are great.. (Score:2)
Dual core processors solved that problem.. I'm golden.
Race is already over (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Race is already over (Score:2)
The Cell is also not a general perpose processor, its rather focused on a few things (like image processing).
Adapted from the Onion (Score:5, Funny)
By Craig Barrett
CEO and President,
Intel
February 10, 2006
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of computing in this country. The Pentium 3 was the CPU to own. Then the other guy came out with a 64-bit x86 CPU. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Itanium. That's 64 bit and a new instruction set. For performance. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened--the bastards went to two cores. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling 64 bits and a new instruction set. Floating point performance or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to four cores.
Sure, we could go to two cores next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, one worked out pretty well, and two is the next number after one. So let's play it safe. Let's make a faster bus and call it the Pentium4SuperExtreme. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-core game. Are they what's inside? Fuck, no. Intel is what's inside.
What part of this don't you understand? If one core is good, and two cores is better, obviously four cores would make us the best fucking CPU that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the processor game by clinging to the 64-bit industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, four cores is the biggest chance of all.
Here's the report from Engineering. Someone put it in the bathroom: I want to wipe my ass with it. They don't tell me what to invent--I tell them. And I'm telling them to stick two more cores in there. I don't care how. Make the wafers so thin they're invisible. Put some on the bottom of the die. I don't care if they have to cram the fourth in perpendicular to the other three, just do it!
You're taking the "point" part of "floating point" too literally, grandma. Cut the strings and soar. Let's hit it. Let's roll. This is our chance to make CPU history. Let's dream big. All you have to do is say that four cores can happen, and it will happen. If you aren't on board, then fuck you. And if you're on the board, then fuck you and your father. Hey, if I'm the only one who'll take risks, I'm sure as hell happy to hog all the glory when the four-core CPU becomes the computing tool for the U.S. of "this is how we compute now" A.
People said we couldn't go to 64-bit. It'll cost a fortune to manufacture, they said. Well, we did it. Now some egghead in a lab is screaming "Four's crazy?" Well, perhaps he'd be more comfortable in the labs at AMD, working on fucking Turions. HyperTransport, my white ass!
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just ride in Motorola's wake and make embedded IC's. Ha! Not on your fucking life! The day I shadow a penny-ante outfit like Motorola is the day I leave the CPU game for good, and that won't happen until the day I die!
The market? Listen, we make the market. All we have to do is put her out there with a little jingle. It's as easy as, "Hey, gaming with anything less than four blades is like playing at VGA resolution." Or "You'll be so l33t, I couldn't snipe you with an aimbot." Try "Your b0x is going to be so friggin' fast, someone's gonna walk up and put a goddamn spoiler on it."
I know what you're thinking now: What'll people say? Mew mew mew. Oh, no, what will people say?! Grow the fuck up. When you're on top, people talk. That's the price you pay for being on top. Which Intel is, always has been, and forever shall be, Amen, four cores, sweet Jesus in heaven.
Stop. I just had a stroke of genius. Are you ready? Open your mouth, baby birds, cause Mama's about to drop you one sweet, fat nightcrawler. Here she comes: Put another Level 2 cache on that fucker, too. That's right. Four cores, two caches, and make th
Re:Adapted from the Onion (Score:2)
D'oh!
I mean...uh...he's talking about blade servers, obviously.
For those not familiar with the original: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930 [theonion.com]
Discussion by year 2342 (Score:2, Funny)
Great excuse... (Score:2, Insightful)
SUN had 8 core CPUS in 2005 (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/overview/i
Not Surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Just watch the Intel 2005 Keynote speech, [taoriver.net] (video) [intel.com] hear about x100 cores and x100 GBits/sec chip-chip data transfer.
It's not like this is a big secret or anything.
Ars Technica has a better article... (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, they point out that Intel's dual core processors are already starved on the FSB, and loading two more cores isn't going to do very much. He seems to expect that, until Intel gets their FSB in order(which won't happen until 2008), AMD is going to stomp all over them. He says that Intel's cores are excellent, but without CSI (their new FSB), it may not matter much.
My own projection is that the extra contention may end up imposing a net speed _penalty_ for many workloads. That is, however, pure speculation from an amateur, based mostly on the dismal performance of the first dual-CPU G4 Macs.
How many have seen / used the Sun T1 processor (Score:3, Interesting)
A nicely loaded Sun T2000 system, with 8 cores, 32Gig RAM, Dual 2GB FCA and 8 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces comes in with a street price of approximately 30K. Add in Solaris 10 with it's container technology, the fact that it only uses 325Watts of power, and is light on BTUs - we're talking serious datacenter contender for web services, application servers, database servers, etc...
I'm currently looking at consolidating approximately 20 aging systems using over 10KW of power and close to 20K BTUs/hr thermal output. I am planning on replacing these 20 systems with 4 T2000 servers totaling 1500KW and approximately 5K BTUs/hr thermal output. Not only will I be saving on maintenance for the hardware, but also on software licensing as common applications like Oracle and BEA are licensing their products at 1/4 cpu per core on these processors. I will also be saving on power and cooling requirements for the datacenter. Not to mention datacenter floor space - I will be able to empty 2 full racks with this consolidation project. I'm hoping to expand it and end up with 1 rack of T2000's replacing close to the entire datacenter's UNIX population.
The 8-core Alpha (Score:5, Informative)
96 Cores (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.com.com/Designer+puts+96+cores+on+sin
In short, Clearspeed's CSX600 has 96 cores, but is designed to be an accelerator board.
Re:DragonFly BSD will really start to shine. (Score:4, Insightful)
OpenSolaris and DragonFly won't take the lead (Score:3, Insightful)
Solaris helped Linux to scale, mainly by showing what NOT to do. Back when Linux was starting to get serious about SMP, the design was strongly influenced by horror stories from former Sun developers. Solaris and IRIX suffer from excessive locking. The locking is so complicated that it causes developers to add new locks instead of
Re:OpenSolaris and DragonFly won't take the lead (Score:4, Interesting)
As for dragonfly, I do think that Matt was right about some problems with freebsd 5 and 6 but each release is getting faster. 6.1 beta is noticably faster. Dragonfly isn't revolutionary though. I think some of the ideas from Mach inspired some of their design decisions and we all know Apple has the most succesful Mach kernel in the commercial world.
I don't know if we'll see freebsd or dragonfly look super impressive on multicore cpus, but I do know that openbsd and netbsd may not scale well depending on what they are working on. I can tell you that freebsd 6 does fine on my dual xeon machine. Solaris 10 on the same system seemed slightly slow but i think that was driver support more than anything. Linux IS SLOW on the system regardless of the scheduler. For that OS class, I had to install the 2.6.15 kernel and custom compile it for my system prior to our work on adding system calls. Its not as fast (gentoo) as freebsd 6 was on the system, but faster than freebsd 5.x. (especially disk io) I don't know why linux seems slow as it is using both cpus quite well. Of course this is percieved speed.. i haven't done any formal benchmarks.
Maybe someone should do a serious benchmark on FreeBSD 6, Netbsd 3, Dragonfly (whatever the latest is), OpenBSD 3.8, Linux 2.6.15 (gentoo distro?), and for kicks OpenDarwin all running on the same dual core hardware. Hell if i get time this summer, i might do it.
Re:OpenSolaris and DragonFly won't take the lead (Score:2)
Has FreeBSD suddenly changed course? Their threading history as I know it is: pure user-level thread hack as the default for version 4 (most systems start this way), a LinuxThreads port as an option for version 4, and now adding a very buggy exotic system for version 5. The exotic system is somewhat like what Solaris used to do, generally being called an N:M design.
Matt
Re:This is pure hype (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is pure hype (Score:2)
; )
Re:This is pure hype (Score:2)
Actually, it is a good path... (Score:2)
In contrast, a dual-core chip has exactly double the maximum IPC of a single chip, regardless of hyperthreading.
Correction: (Score:2)
Err, no. (Score:2)
Just to make this clear, I am not talking about one physical CPU core with multiple registers it cycles between. That would be ghastly slow. I'm ta
Re:I'm not sure it's a good path. (Score:2)
It would be more the reconfigurable... (Score:2)
Re:However, (Score:2)
Re:However, (Score:2)
Re:Cell versus 8086. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Die-mensional Computing (Score:2)
Linux can efficiently handle NUMA and hotplugging CPUs at the same time. Memory locality and extremely scalable TLB management also help make it one of the fastest and most scalable systems out there. Linux can handle 128 CPUs out of the box as it were (vanilla kernel), and with patches from SGI up to 512 CPUs. I think only Solaris/SPARC can beat it with such high-end configurations.
Re:Vista (Score:2)
Re:Vista (Score:2)
That isn't the scary part it's the terrabyte of ram it requires.
Re:Multi CPUs? Why not Cluster? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you can, for some things. The problem is that the speed of even gigabit Ethernet is so slow (compared to the speed of the interconnect between two CPUs on the same chip or motherboard) that in order for a program that runs well over a cluster, it often has to be designed completely differently from a program that will run well on a multi-CPU machine. In particular, things like shared memory are extremely difficult to simulate over a network, but trivial when you've got a single machine where the CPUs, well, share the memory.
For a lot of problem types, the high latency and low bandwidth of the network interconnect lead to the situation where you've spent hours and hours getting your app to run across all the CPUs in your cluster, only to find out that it's actually running slower than the simple version of the app that does everything on a single CPU. That's really embarrassing...
Re:I want single core COLD processors! (Score:3, Informative)
"Proper motherboard designs also can allow multi-proc systems which will mitigate the fact that you need multiple cores on a die."
The problem with that idea is that as soon as you have a multi-socket motherboard, you can put multi-core CPUs in each socket. In actual fact, multiple cores make a lot of sense over discrete processors, depending on the bus architect