Jump to content
  • 0

Question

Posted

Is there any Intel CPU out there with 8 processors yet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted

Do you mean cores?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Technically i7's I believe have 8 cores through the use of hyper threading - Something I don't believe companies like AMD do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Do you mean cores?

 

Guess so yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Just saw subscribed.gifWatch Dogs PC specs and want to upgrade maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Haswell-E will have 8 cores next year. But you can get 12 core Intel Xeon CPU's right now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Yea the X99 will have 8, but for now anyway it's primarily AMD only unless you want to go into the four digit range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Haswell-E will have 8 cores next year. But you can get 12 core Intel Xeon CPU's right now.

 

The 12 core Intel Xeon CPUs are thousands of dollars though right? What are they mainly for anyway ? How much can they handle ?

 

Would it even work in my motherboard as well ?

 

Asus  P8P67 LE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Technically i7's I believe have 8 cores through the use of hyper threading - Something I don't believe companies like AMD do.

AMD's implementation of threads is more accurate to cores than hyperthreading. 8 integer units with 4 FPUs, while intel goes 4 integer units, 4 fpus with 2 threads for each one of them. (quad core parts... because there is the 6 core part too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

AMD's implementation of threads is more accurate to cores than hyperthreading. 8 integer units with 4 FPUs, while intel goes 4 integer units, 4 fpus with 2 threads for each one of them. (quad core parts... because there is the 6 core part too)

that's a much better way of writing what I was trying to say :p

 

I had this very conversation with a friend recently who thought it was better to go AMD as they could get an 8 core CPU whereas Intel only offered 4 and had to try and explain hyper threading without fully knowing the technical ins and outs of how and why etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

that's a much better way of writing what I was trying to say :p

 

I had this very conversation with a friend recently who thought it was better to go AMD as they could get an 8 core CPU whereas Intel only offered 4 and had to try and explain hyper threading without fully knowing the technical ins and outs of how and why etc.

 

 

Really? How odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

that's a much better way of writing what I was trying to say :p

 

I had this very conversation with a friend recently who thought it was better to go AMD as they could get an 8 core CPU whereas Intel only offered 4 and had to try and explain hyper threading without fully knowing the technical ins and outs of how and why etc.

I develop for my research on an FX8350, the performance that I have for my current tasks is better than using hyperthreading. Hyperthreading works when the load is very light, when it isn't, both threads battle for resources on both the integer or the FPU unit. So as you can see, no real winner here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

The 12 core Intel Xeon CPUs are thousands of dollars though right? What are they mainly for anyway ? How much can they handle ?

 

Would it even work in my motherboard as well ?

 

Asus  P8P67 LE

They are a lot more expensive and they are Server grade CPU's not what you want to be using for gaming and they won't work with your motherboard anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Technically i7's I believe have 8 cores through the use of hyper threading

Hyperthreading doesn't add cores, it's an optimisation to allow more efficient thread switching. An application running more threads than the number of cores will run slightly faster on a HT processor; as the threads compete for CPU time they'll be scheduled more efficiently with hyper-threading than without. If it's running the same number of threads it will make no difference.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Unless you're upgrading a server which needs extreme parallel computing, it would be a huge waste of money. No consumer level game or application is going to take advantage of all those cores with an appropriate amount of threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Hyper-v can always use more cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

More core's doesn't always mean better performance either, especially so when the code isn't multithreaded for said cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

I wonder if it is possible to hook up 8 Pentium 4 processors, you could probably  then use it to heat your house :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

For hyper-v it does since you can assign cores to each virtual machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the 8+ core CPUs are all Xeon, aren't they? And you'll be looking at costs of $1000+ easily. I've got about all the different kinds here at work. They aren't worth it for a home system 99% of the time unless you plan on running some serious virtualization. Also, no, most of them won't work with your current motherboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Cant wait to get a ESX system set up with Quad 8 core processors and a huge SAN and 128GB of ECC RAM per processor..... 32 Cores with tons of disk space and memory = VDI ready

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

More cores does mean more theoretical performance but applications have be written to take advantage and right now very little end up using more then 2-4 (with older applications only using 1)

A lot of configurations (especially laptops and tablets) are restricted in terms of how much heat they can output and as such rate chips in terms of TDP (Thermal design power). Due to this in previous years we saw a lot of cases where you could get 4 lower clocked cores or 2 higher clocked cores.

 

Now Intel Turbo Boost has gotten so good that it really isn't the case any more, you can have 4 cores running at a lower clock  but if only 1 or 2 are in use the other cores are disabled and the clock speed on those individual cores are increased while staying within the TDP.

 

Still it'll be a bit before desktop chips migrate to higher core count. As some users mentioned Haswell-E will have 8 core options but that's really more an enthusiast/workstation platform then consumer.

 

We might start to see this change more rapidly in games at least as Xbox One and Playstation 4 are both 8 cores but they are both fairly low IPC cores and in most cases 4 Intel cores outpace them. It'll be interesting to see the next few years anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

More cores does mean more theoretical performance but applications have be written to take advantage and right now very little end up using more then 2-4 (with older applications only using 1)

Very true -- but most people would tend to run more than one program at a time, not including background services and such.. those extra cores should improve "relative performance" as the OS allocates the workload across what's available.  Not going to do anything for ye olde single threaded programs, but it won't bog the system down either as the extra cores free it up to do something else, at least with later versions of Windows (and Linux obviously), if I remember right XP was fairly bad at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Very true -- but most people would tend to run more than one program at a time, not including background services and such.. those extra cores should improve "relative performance" as the OS allocates the workload across what's available.  Not going to do anything for ye olde single threaded programs, but it won't bog the system down either as the extra cores free it up to do something else, at least with later versions of Windows (and Linux obviously), if I remember right XP was fairly bad at it.

 

SSD helps a lot too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Hello,

I hope you ment cores instead of processors. There are motherboards that support more than one processor but I believe consumer based products are not optimized for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted

Xeon processors are for servers/workstations. Depending on the socket, a Xeon might work 'unofficially' in a non-server motherboard. If you plan on doing any overclocking, then consider a desktop processor instead.

 

Do you absolutely need 6+ cores? Do you just want more cores? More cores don't necessarily mean a performance increase. Most programs, especially games, usually don't use more than 2 cores at a time. Are you doing something like video editing? If so, look at the high-end Sandy Bridge-E or Ivy Bridge-E CPUs... or wait for Haswell-E and its rumored 8 core processors. No need to consider AMD's 6+ core processors because as far as I know (going on what I knew about Bulldozer) the FX series with 6+ cores uses integer cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.