Here We Go!! Quad cores....

Intel released their new quad cores (Kentsfield) today:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2049756,00.asp

 

I'm Steaming MAD!!!!! I want QUAD CORE.

 

Technically speaking, the title "quad core" is inaccurate. It's actually two C2Ds on the same CPU die, which means no unified L2 cache across all 4 cores and some inter-core communications across the FSB.

Perhaps a better name for it would be Core 2 Duo Duo?

 

very nice article, nice finding, and thats intresting considering AMD will launch their own version to overule intel as it did previously before the core 2 duos.

 

So when do you think they will be available for notebooks from Dell, HP, and others?

 

I don't know if this is totally accurate, but aren't the new quad (or dual dual lol) cores supposed to be power hogs and get pretty hot? Meaning it would be awhile before we saw them in notebooks?

I thought I read about that somewhere? But maybe my memories just making stuff up

 

The only practical use for quad-core processors right now is for highly threaded server apps and multimedia creation. Keep in mind that most software can't even use two cores well.

 

These quad cores will be better then amd quad cores.

I say this because, even though they take more power, since they are basically two cpus put together, games that don't see quad cores will see it as two cpus and give it a boost nontheless. That was probebly the thought process.

It'll work on any machine that works on dual cores.

 

Good point, I didn't even think about that... Will Intel come out with a "true" quad core sometime in the near future? After AMD has released theirs?

 

Um...did you just make that up? I think you did.

Intel plans on shifting to a native quad-core later on in '07 as well.

 

I thikn that this will be pretty useless for normal users.
But think of the applications this would have in grid computing. Or in extreme virtualization, simulations, etc. in the medical and scientific fields. Thats a ton of power and can really do a lot for specialized programs.

 

There's also a review on Intel's Kinda-Quad™ CPU over at Tom's Hardware, where benchmarking suggests gamers will see little to no benefit going to quad core.

:EDIT: Just reading the extensive preview TH did back in September, and not only does quad core not improve gaming, it will actually cause a couple of titles to fail. Seems the are several "multi-threaded" apps out there that are hardcoded to only work with two cores...

 

wouldn't it be neat if we could start having 1 machine hosting 2 games?

I mean, you have 2 vid cards 2 monitors, 2 keyboards, 2 mice... 2 people playing on 1 pc. Playing 2 seperate games.
But um.. yeah, thats far fetched :-

 

No, I'm guessing, There aren't many games that support even dual core at the moment, and if this is two cpus on 1 core... it would be like having two cpus...

If anyone knows, having two cpus is an automatic boost, as long as windows accepts it. We've had two cpu machines since 1997, never had the need to make dedicated reading software for them.

Having two cores, however, means you basically need software to read it, since we don't have really good software that reads it.

Basically speaking, a dual core machine is not 2 cpus that both run at 2 ghz, it's 2 cpus that run at 2 ghz. Unless you have the software to support them, you end up with one core useless.

If you have a cpu that is two cpus, you may end up with it reading it as two cpus. Then anything supporting dual core may also support the 4 cores.

This is all speculation, but it could happen.

 

Hum, after thinking about it, if it's using two cores, theres really no way for it to support two more.

But this may be why apps did an increase for 50%. They are running using 'two cpus' instead of one core...

Perhaps single core games will also run faster?

All they tested was Quake 4...

 

Nope.

The application doesn't care if the CPU is *technically* two dualcores glued together, or one native quad-core. The application doesn't care how many cores you have, even.

That's the job of the OS. The games just spawn the number of threads they need, and leave the OS to figure out which cores are available, and which ones should run which threads when.

In other words, it won't make a difference whether a game "supports" dualcore or not. (And the word "supports" is misleading, since it doesn't actually require support. "Takes advantage of" would be more accurate. And a game that takes advantage of two or four cores will do that regardless of how the CPU is designed. (And the reason they went with the 2xdualcore design is simply because it's easier, not because it's more efficient or easier to use, which it isn't)

No. It's not an automatic boost, *unless* you have more than one thread actively running (active as in consuming CPU time, not just waiting for a timer, I/O activity or other events). In some scenarios, that is usually the case, so you will get your performance boost, but it's not "automatic", and it relies on the exact same requirements as a singel multicore CPU.

If all you have is one active thread, dual, quad, or octo or centicore (would that be hundred?) won't make a scrap of difference.

It also won't make a difference whether you have 1, 2, 4 or 2000 physical cpu's. The OS deals with that, and the applications just create threads to be run on whichever core on whichever cpu is available.

Nope, I'm sorry, but it couldn't.
It just doesn't work that way.

Your software isn't aware of how many cores or CPU's are available. Your software simply spawns a number of threads, and the OS makes it look like they're all running simultaneously, regardless of the actual hardware. That is why software doesn't need to "support" multicore CPU's. It needs to take advantage of it, which is done by creating enough threads that can be executed in parallel. If your application runs in a single thread, it can only use one core. That means that no matter how many cores you have, and no matter how many CPU's you have, only one core on one CPU will be used, and performance will *not* improve.
If it runs in two, it can take advantage of two cores (or two CPU's with one core each). If it runs in four, it can take advantage of 1 quad core CPU OR 2 dualcore CPU's OR four singlecore CPU's. But the application can't tell the difference.
The OS just ensures that it *looks* like all threads are being processed in parallel, and takes care of scheduling which thread should run on which core on which CPU.

So it makes no difference, for the application, whether you have 1 CPU with 1 core, 2 CPU's with 1 core each, 1 CPU with 2 cores, or 2 CPU's with 2 cores each, or 1 CPU with 4 cores, or whatever other combination you can think of.

To the application, it's all the same. The application is under the impression that an infinite number of threads can be executed in parallel, no matter what. Just like it's under the impression that it's the only process on the system, and has the entire memory space to itself, and that it's being run continuously 100% of the time with no interruptions.

A large part of an OS'es job is in fooling the applications that run on it.

 

Nah, you're correct.

They suck down about double the power that the current Core 2 Duo do, and I'm sure they wont be out in notebook for a looooong time.

 

The problem (power-wise) with current quad core CPU's is that they're two dualcore CPU's glued together. That's fine for getting a simple solution out on the market, and the performance isn't too bad, but the power consumption goes through the roof.

By comparison, AMD's native quad cores are estimated to use about as much power as their dualcore chips. (And Intel's will probably fall in the same range once they migrate to a similar native design)

 

Dual cores are barely a necessity, let alone quad cores at the moment. For games, yeah it's cool, but what's the point when you're only using half that power anyways? Yes, that's product longevity, but still a crap load of money to pay.

 

yeah thats true its not nessary right now when you buy a notebook online and you click the details of the processor it tells you that you wont see a difference unless programs are made to utilize them.

 

Huh... Quad Core have 2 post... glue it together Chaz.