Jump to content



Photo
intel sandy bridge cpu multicore

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#16 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

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

Posted 17 October 2011 - 15:22

Intel has 10 core Xeons out also. :)


I'm aware.


#17 Singh400

Singh400

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,839 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 15:56

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.

Agreed, took the words out of my mouth. This is what happens when you nearest competitor can't compete. Come on AMD step up your game.

#18 UXGaurav

UXGaurav

    Tried Classic Shell? It has 15 million+ downloads & growing

  • 3,865 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 05
  • Location: Windows
  • OS: Windows

Posted 17 October 2011 - 17:41

People still don't get that to benefit from all the cores, you have to write specifically coded apps to take advantage of those cores using parallel programming libraries and compilers. Regular apps just won't automagically benefit from increased cores. Yes the scheduler in Windows 7 has some optimizations for multiple cores to ensure fairer scheduling. But even in this test for example, XP outperforms Windows 7 on dual and quad cores. Only when it cores increase to 8 or more, Windows 7 leaps ahead.

#19 Jack 0Neill

Jack 0Neill

    Neowinian

  • 632 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 05

Posted 17 October 2011 - 19:57


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

Sadly you can't cure stupid.

#20 mkol

mkol

    mkol

  • 1,347 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 04
  • Location: uk
  • OS: Windows 7 64bit Ultimate
  • Phone: Google Nexus 5 32gb

Posted 17 October 2011 - 20:12

waste of money

#21 MikeGMD

MikeGMD

    Neowinian

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11
  • Location: Salisbury University

Posted 17 October 2011 - 20:14

maybe it is just me but i do not see the need for more then 2 cores

i have a dual and a quad and see no difference at all

this time next year we will have AMD 26 core 256bit cpus lol

#22 ShiZZa

ShiZZa

    Neowinian

  • 223 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 02
  • OS: Windows Server 2012
  • Phone: HTC Titian WP7.5

Posted 17 October 2011 - 20:26

these 6 core cpus most likely are the ones that don't meet x8 that are used in the xeons or some i7 xtream to be released later. This is fairly common in the cpu world. Unless you buy the top of the line you are buying something that is defective so to speak.

#23 Ace

Ace

    Neowinian

  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 01
  • Location: United Kingdom

Posted 17 October 2011 - 20:57

Regular apps just won't automagically benefit from increased cores.

If you have ever used Foobar2000 or dBpowerAMP to encode music you will know this is not quite true. The more cores you have, the more copies of Lame.exe or NeroAACEnc.exe you can run simultaneously. Then you have multi-process apps like Google Chrome...

Posted Image

#24 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 - 20:57

these 6 core cpus most likely are the ones that don't meet x8 that are used in the xeons or some i7 xtream to be released later. This is fairly common in the cpu world. Unless you buy the top of the line you are buying something that is defective so to speak.

I would definitely agree with this, but the article only says Sandy Bridge E, which includes the Xeons as well. I'm curious if this limitation will exist on the early Xeons as well. I know the ES chips are 8 core, but I have heard they are still getting pretty poor yields out of the chips right now.

#25 UXGaurav

UXGaurav

    Tried Classic Shell? It has 15 million+ downloads & growing

  • 3,865 posts
  • Joined: 18-October 05
  • Location: Windows
  • OS: Windows

Posted 18 October 2011 - 03:07

If you have ever used Foobar2000 or dBpowerAMP to encode music you will know this is not quite true. The more cores you have, the more copies of Lame.exe or NeroAACEnc.exe you can run simultaneously. Then you have multi-process apps like Google Chrome...


That's because apps like encoding tools are usually almost always multi-core optimized by their developers, they are not regular apps. :)

#26 Ace

Ace

    Neowinian

  • 666 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 01
  • Location: United Kingdom

Posted 18 October 2011 - 08:08

That's because apps like encoding tools are usually almost always multi-core optimized by their developers,

The point I was trying to make with those programs is that they do not need to use special multi-core optimized versions of the encoders e.g. LAME-MT. A quad core processor will run more single-threaded programs concurrently than a dual core processor will. :)

they are not regular apps. :)

What makes an app, a regular app?

#27 TEX4S

TEX4S

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,857 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 04
  • Location: DFW

Posted 18 October 2011 - 08:33

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).


Thanks for playing troll. Try Again

maybe it is just me but i do not see the need for more then 2 cores

i have a dual and a quad and see no difference at all

this time next year we will have AMD 26 core 256bit cpus lol


Yep, its just you. If all you do is hop on facebook, then NO you wont see a difference.

#28 Warboy

Warboy

    The Doctor

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: 25-November 06
  • Location: Michigan
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Epic 4G Touch

Posted 18 October 2011 - 09:42

As a Enthusiast, I am honestly disappointed. One being that we have six cores out there already, look at the Core i7 970. 6 Core processor, 500 bucks, it's been on the market for awhile and will be discontinued once these come out. Forcing us to move to the new platform. But since there will be Socket 1366 Intel Chipset X79 motherboards, there is NO reason why this should be done. All the benefits, and it costs less.

#29 +TruckWEB

TruckWEB

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,394 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 01
  • Location: Quebec, Canada

Posted 18 October 2011 - 13:05

Intel does not need to sell a desktop 8 core CPU. The current Quad-Core i5/i7 are already faster than the new AMD Bulldozer. So a 6 core Sandy-Bridge is all Intel need to shine and still be the king of speed.

And unless you run VmWare/VirtualBox on your desktop PC, not so many apps really need 6-8 core. Desktop PC are NOT servers and are not running Oracle or SQL Server database or used as reendering farms. If you do, then get a XEON CPU inside your PC.

#30 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

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

Posted 18 October 2011 - 13:23

And unless you run VmWare/VirtualBox on your desktop PC, not so many apps really need 6-8 core. Desktop PC are NOT servers and are not running Oracle or SQL Server database or used as reendering farms. If you do, then get a XEON CPU inside your PC.


This is a chicken and the egg problem. There's no mainstream software making use of it because no one has the processors and no one has the processors because theres no mainstream software to use it.

At some point you have to break the cycle and release one of the products to spur the growth of the other. Also I would disagree that there isn't software that can make really good use of these extra processing cores.

1. Video encoding and decoding is multi-core now and has been for years
2. Transcoding songs from FLAC to other formats can all be multi-threaded by converting 1 song per core
3. Browsers like Chrome spawn separate threads for each open tab, these can all be placed on their own core increasing performance. This is incredibly important going forward where the browser becomes an application delivery system where web apps increase in complexity and client side processing duties. You need to think about this like running an application and not running just a web page.
4. Video editing, photo manipulation and audio composing all benefit greatly from multiple processing cores
5. Games, AI, Physics, Netcode, Sound, VoIP, Post-Processing effects. All of these can and are handled on the processor and having multiple cores helps.

And finally maybe the biggest benefit is just being able to run many more demanding tasks at the same time. Lets say your a creative professional and you're coding a website you may have Photoshop open to tweak or create icons, you may have Dreamweaver open to write the app you may have four browsers open to test your sites compatibility. Maybe your site also has some video clips and you want to edit those and make the video fit seamlessly in to your sites design. Now you don't need to close any of these apps you can keep them all open and running without diminished performance.

Make no mistake people currently buy Dual Socket processor systems with 8 and 12 cores. They fly off the shelves in to the homes and work places of creative professionals but these systems use XEON processors and they are extremely expensive when compared to the consumer orientated Core i3/5/7 lines. I'm a creative professional and I use the fastest CPU I can get a hold of with the most cores available to me. I'm also an enthusiast and the fact that Sandy Bridge E is shipping on day one with a six core processor does disappoint me because I've had a six core processor on the older 1366 Socket and I wanted 8 cores, because Intel is not delivering that I won't be upgrading.

You have to look at this from my perspective, I already have a really fast 6 core processor the new Sandy Bridge E will probably offer about a 20% performance boost if I get the 6 core model. Why am I going to pay £500 for the CPU + £350 for a new motherboard just to get 20% more performance? Now if the performance was 50% which is what would have happened had they added two extra cores then I would have upgraded as that 50% would have been worth it.

There really is no need to defend this decision by Intel because even if they offered an 8 core or not it doesn't affect you, they still sell i3, i5 and i7 in Dual, Quad and Hex configurations. Consumers that need less would have that and us that need more would have that too everyone would win.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!