Jump to content



Photo
intel sandy bridge cpu multicore

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#31 xendrome

xendrome

    In God We Trust; All Others We Monitor

  • 7,329 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 01
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64

Posted 18 October 2011 - 13:26

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...



lol wut.... The more cores you have the more copies of an EXE you can have running? Not sure if srs.. or...


#32 Vice

Vice

    Bye!

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

Posted 18 October 2011 - 13:30



lol wut.... The more cores you have the more copies of an EXE you can have running? Not sure if srs.. or...


I think what he means is dBpowerAMP will launch multiple instances of LAME (1 per core) and dedicate the encoding of one song per instance per core. This speeds up the overall transcoding. If you only have two cores dBpowerAMP only launches two instances of the LAME encoder and would split all the songs between those two instances. Thus more cores = Less time to encode.

#33 giantpotato

giantpotato

    Neowinian Senior

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

Posted 18 October 2011 - 13:58

What it comes down to is the fact that some operations just can't be done in parallel.

Example 2*2*2*2 can be split into (2*2) and (2*2) which can be run in parallel, then (result*result) you can't do the same with 2/2/2/2 because each calculation depends on the previous result.

You can optimize for multithreading as much as you want but at some point you just will not be able to use more cores since one core will be waiting on the result of another core. This of course only applies to a single process. If you have multiple processes that are each doing their own, unrelated work you can benefit from multiple cores.

#34 +TruckWEB

TruckWEB

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,442 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 01
  • Location: Quebec, Canada

Posted 18 October 2011 - 14:07

Okay, so I get the point but the next question to ask is : What is the % of enthusiasts/power users? The answer to this is probably why Intel is quite fine shipping a 6 core CPU for now.

Sandy Bridge is a "for everybody" CPU. Even if the "-E" stand for enthusiasts... With that in mind....

How many people out there go on encoding/recoding video file or extract songs with LAME? How many professional video editor? How many people care that Chrome spawn multiple threads? I could go on and on about the "how many use X software" and the truth would probably be "not that many". It would be nice to have real stats to really see what most people do with their PC. And Intel is there for the people who needs more with the XEON and it's too bad if they cost more, it's the price to pay to be a real power user I guess.

#35 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,816 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 18 October 2011 - 14:08

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


The operating system is not the issue - the applications running on the operating system are the issue.

For example, most productivity applications (even the x64 ones, such as Office 2010 applications) are single-core - while the x64 applications commonly multithread, very few of the x32 applications (and don't even get me started on browser add-ons/plug-ins) do so. The same is true of most games - primarily because of legacy single-core P4s running Windows XP.

Sandy Bridge-E is aimed at that niche crowd for whom i7-2600K (the bang-for-buck champ among Intel CPUs today) isn't enough, but for whom a Xeon makes no sense. Basically, it's a niche CPU.

Lastly, from what's been seen out of BD so far, it's *barely* a threat to i3, and isn't one to i5 non-K, let alone i5-K or i7-K.

#36 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,816 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 18 October 2011 - 14:16

Okay, so I get the point but the next question to ask is : What is the % of enthusiasts/power users? The answer to this is probably why Intel is quite fine shipping a 6 core CPU for now.

Sandy Bridge is a "for everybody" CPU. With that in mind....

How many people out there go on encoding/recoding video file or extract songs with LAME? How many professional video editor? How many people care that Chrome spawn multiple threads? I could go on and on about the "how many use X software" and the truth would probably be "not that many". It would be nice to have real stats to really see what most people do with their PC. And Intel is there for the people who needs more with the XEON and it's too bad if they cost more, it's the price to pay to be a real power user I guess.


+1

I willingly admit - for what I do (a mix of games and virtualization) a quad-core (even a Phenom II X4) would be plenty, as long as I have enough RAM and GPU. However, even for bareboards, Sandy Bridge is a better bargain than AM3+ (BD) - even comparing i5-K to Phenom II X4, let alone X6. While AMD CPUs are less expensive, the motherboards are more expensive - worse, for general productivity, let alone gaming, BD, let alone the other AM3+ CPUs are underpowered compared to i5 non-K, let alone i5-K. (i5-K+Z68+8 GB<$400 retail, including tax).

#37 svnO.o

svnO.o

    Programmer & Web Developer

  • 1,794 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 08
  • Location: Washington State

Posted 19 October 2011 - 18:48

I've been fine with my Q9550 for awhile but I got dual 6950s now and need better cooling/power so figured I'd upgrade. I am personally disappointed as well that I can't jump to a high performing 8 core yet. I've been using a quad since the Q6600 several years ago but the leap to Sandy Bridge @5GHz should be good enough for now. I'm just tired of my overall performance bottlenecks running 3 monitors on old DDR2 800MHz ram. It probably won't be til 2013-2014 until high performing 8 cores become more affordable/mainstream (though I'd consider one in the future @ $500 if its an 8 core with hyper threading and can overclock to 6-7GHz) so a solid performing SB system should suffice til then.