Jump to content



Photo
intel sandy bridge cpu multicore

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 Ci7

Ci7

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,220 posts
  • Joined: 21-June 08
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Sony XZ

Posted 17 October 2011 - 08:11

Intel didn't really cause mixed feelings among its followers the same way AMD did, but it still offered a reason for them to be less than enthusiastic by not being as enthusiastic as them, so to speak.

Intel recently 'disappointed' the more enthusiastic of its followers by revealing that its first Sandy Bridge-CPU would not have eight cores.

That is to say, not all eight of them would be enabled and, instead, 'only' six would be up and ready to breeze through even the most hardcore of games and applications.

A short list of reasons was compiled in order to explain to those hardcore overclockers and gamers why this is going to happen.

The TDP (thermal design power) is the most obvious of them, since the E chips are very big beasts (relatively speaking) and have a lot of cache memory.

Desktops nowadays try to stay at 120W or under, while an eight-core chip, with a clock speed higher than 3 GHz (to justify the upgrade form old CPUs to new ones) would demand about 150W.

The other major reason is how operating systems don't really know what to do with chips that have so many cores (they can barely put six of them to work, let alone eight).

In other words, Intel is making the same argument AMD used to assure prospective buyers that the FX Bulldozer chips willgain performance when Windows 8 appears.

All in all, the first Sandy Bridge-E CPUs will, in the end, have 'only' six cores because the company wouldn't have been able to jam more than that number, working at 3.3 GHz, into the 130W limit.

After all, since enthusiasts won't really be susceptible to the wiles of eight-core units if said chips don't have at least 3 GHz from the get go.

Intel should get around to enabling all eight cores at the next CPU stepping (with 20 MB L3 cache memory instead of 15).


source:
http://news.softpedi...ve-228018.shtml


#2 citan

citan

    Neowinian

  • 232 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:06

Hm, i guess i'm going to wait for Ivy Bridge, going to build my new render machine then :)

#3 Miuku.

Miuku.

    A damned noob

  • 4,885 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: Finland, EU
  • OS: :: OS X :: SLES ::

Posted 17 October 2011 - 12:34

They should really say "Windows doesn't know how to use more cores" because Linux and BSD definitely can, and properly for that matter (as well as OS X).

#4 vetneufuse

neufuse

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,860 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 04

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:23

They should really say "Windows doesn't know how to use more cores" because Linux and BSD definitely can, and properly for that matter (as well as OS X).


*scratches head* yet Windows 7 was to take full advantage of multithreading it was one of the "features" of Windows 7's environment... so that whole thing makes no sense... because I can run 8 cores perfectly fine at full speed in windows server 2008 r2...

#5 Amarok

Amarok

    One. Three. FiVe.

  • 1,773 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 04
  • Location: New York, USA

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:36

Completely understand where they're coming from on this one. The cores have to be utilized for them to be useful and they have to each have to match current processors in speed. If they're not fully utilized (and for the most part they won't be yet.) they're superfluous, and if each core isn't as fast as current quads (or six-core processors) then there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to them as you won't see any benefit at all until support for 8 cores is common. Granted there are some applications that will take advantage of 8 cores, but not that many, and even fewer that the average person uses. On the gaming front it took forever and a day to get a decent number of them supporting 4-cores, I'm hoping that support for 8 won't be such a major headache.

#6 giantpotato

giantpotato

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 04
  • Location: Montreal, Canada

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:52

My guess is they just haven't perfected the manufacturing process yet, and their batches routinely have 1-2 defective cores, so they're just salvaging them and marketing them like AMD with the tri-core cpu's. The reasons they give don't hold any weight IMO. If the next stepping will have 8 cores, and the same clock speed they will still consume 150W eventually. Surely, the performance would not be worse with 8 cores vs. 6 cores even if windows 7 cannot manage threads efficiently.

#7 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

  • 15,877 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 04

Posted 17 October 2011 - 14:01

They have 8 core XEON's this is just them not feeling the heat from AMD. No reason to release an 8 Core CPU when they have no competition. Don't you find it suspect they waited a mere 3 days after the Bulldozer benches to release these statements when they could have said this months ago when they finalised the specifications and pricing of the three chips?

Had Bulldozer knocked the socks off Intel's 6 core Sandy Bridge E, they would have most definitely brought an 8 Core to market. No question.

#8 The Teej

The Teej

    Also known as The Tjalian

  • 7,097 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 05
  • Location: England, UK

Posted 17 October 2011 - 14:04

I thought Windows 7 was designed to be scalable enough to handle up to 64 cores?

#9 xendrome

xendrome

    In God We Trust; All Others We Monitor

  • 7,325 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 01
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Posted 17 October 2011 - 14:07

My guess is they just haven't perfected the manufacturing process yet, and their batches routinely have 1-2 defective cores, so they're just salvaging them and marketing them like AMD with the tri-core cpu's. The reasons they give don't hold any weight IMO. If the next stepping will have 8 cores, and the same clock speed they will still consume 150W eventually. Surely, the performance would not be worse with 8 cores vs. 6 cores even if windows 7 cannot manage threads efficiently.


8 Core Xeon's have been out for well over a year, Intel has it down pretty good imho...

Look up the Xeon 7500/Xeon E7-8830

#10 AJerman

AJerman

    Boomer Sooner!

  • 5,512 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 02
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 17 October 2011 - 14:09

My guess is they just haven't perfected the manufacturing process yet, and their batches routinely have 1-2 defective cores, so they're just salvaging them and marketing them like AMD with the tri-core cpu's. The reasons they give don't hold any weight IMO. If the next stepping will have 8 cores, and the same clock speed they will still consume 150W eventually. Surely, the performance would not be worse with 8 cores vs. 6 cores even if windows 7 cannot manage threads efficiently.


I know they are having trouble with yields on Sandy Bridge right now, so I'd bet on this.

#11 giantpotato

giantpotato

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,138 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 04
  • Location: Montreal, Canada

Posted 17 October 2011 - 14:12


8 Core Xeon's have been out for well over a year, Intel has it down pretty good imho...

Look up the Xeon 7500/Xeon E7-8830


Just because one type of chip can be manufactured with 8-cores does not mean a newer architecture automatically can be.

#12 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

  • 15,877 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 04

Posted 17 October 2011 - 14:51


8 Core Xeon's have been out for well over a year, Intel has it down pretty good imho...

Look up the Xeon 7500/Xeon E7-8830


I know. That's what I said. Intel have 8 Core XEONS. I've personally had access to the X7560. I use two Six core L5640's personally. The 8 core processors are more than 4x as much as the L5640.

And this is also due to a lack of competition. AMD's 12 Core Opterons do not even beat Intels Six core processors let alone the 8 Core XEON chips.

#13 vetneufuse

neufuse

    Neowinian Senior

  • 16,860 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 04

Posted 17 October 2011 - 15:07

I thought Windows 7 was designed to be scalable enough to handle up to 64 cores?


it was, hence my post prior... yet everyone seems to be ignoring the fact the OS is already designed for this....

#14 tsupersonic

tsupersonic

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,657 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Win. 8.1 Pro. x64/Mac OS X
  • Phone: iPhone 5S/Nexus 5

Posted 17 October 2011 - 15:15

I don't get why enthusiasts disapprove? It's not like Bulldozer or any AMD chip can match its performance anyway. They barely can keep up with i5/i7 as it is

#15 AJerman

AJerman

    Boomer Sooner!

  • 5,512 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 02
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 17 October 2011 - 15:17


I know. That's what I said. Intel have 8 Core XEONS. I've personally had access to the X7560. I use two Six core L5640's personally. The 8 core processors are more than 4x as much as the L5640.

And this is also due to a lack of competition. AMD's 12 Core Opterons do not even beat Intels Six core processors let alone the 8 Core XEON chips.

Intel has 10 core Xeons out also. :)