Nail in the coffin for AMD ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Puddle, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. Puddle

    Puddle Guest

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/

    AMD have to be very worried about how far Intel are racing ahead.

    Now they are being beaten in power consumption also.

    4 cores 3.79 watts idle at 4ghz 12 megs cache and the new sse4
    instruction set

    79 watts total when all cores are running at 100%

    and it's 45% faster than AMD's fastest CPU.

    I really cannot see how AMD are going to survive... They really need to
    pull something out of the hat and soon...
     
    Puddle, Nov 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Puddle

    thingy Guest

    Puddle wrote:
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/
    >
    > AMD have to be very worried about how far Intel are racing ahead.
    >
    > Now they are being beaten in power consumption also.
    >
    > 4 cores 3.79 watts idle at 4ghz 12 megs cache and the new sse4
    > instruction set
    >
    > 79 watts total when all cores are running at 100%
    >
    > and it's 45% faster than AMD's fastest CPU.
    >
    > I really cannot see how AMD are going to survive... They really need to
    > pull something out of the hat and soon...


    They didnt with the new server cpus.....so i expect a fizzle....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Nov 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Puddle

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:34:44 +1300, Puddle <>
    wrote:

    >http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/
    >
    >AMD have to be very worried about how far Intel are racing ahead.
    >
    >Now they are being beaten in power consumption also.
    >
    >4 cores 3.79 watts idle at 4ghz 12 megs cache and the new sse4
    >instruction set
    >
    >79 watts total when all cores are running at 100%
    >
    >and it's 45% faster than AMD's fastest CPU.
    >
    >I really cannot see how AMD are going to survive... They really need to
    >pull something out of the hat and soon...


    Well, they have had lots of money gained from questionable practices
    in the market place to throw at it, haven't they? Look at how many
    places around the world where Intel have put pressure on PC builders
    and retailers not to use AMD CPUs, resulting in multiple antitrust
    cases brought against them. It would be a pitty if this tactic
    succeeded in bringing the demise of AMD. To say that AMD has been
    hurt by these actions is a given. I sincerely hope they can hold on
    until the court cases against Intel are resolved successfully. What
    AMD could have done with extra development money would have been
    interesting, especially moving to 45nm and ramping up their quadcore
    speed and production.

    Unless bragging rights are your thing, or you legitimately need the
    high power, why support Intel?
     
    Nighthawk, Nov 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Puddle

    Puddle Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:34:44 +1300, Puddle <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/
    >>
    >> AMD have to be very worried about how far Intel are racing ahead.
    >>
    >> Now they are being beaten in power consumption also.
    >>
    >> 4 cores 3.79 watts idle at 4ghz 12 megs cache and the new sse4
    >> instruction set
    >>
    >> 79 watts total when all cores are running at 100%
    >>
    >> and it's 45% faster than AMD's fastest CPU.
    >>
    >> I really cannot see how AMD are going to survive... They really need to
    >> pull something out of the hat and soon...

    >
    > Well, they have had lots of money gained from questionable practices
    > in the market place to throw at it, haven't they? Look at how many
    > places around the world where Intel have put pressure on PC builders
    > and retailers not to use AMD CPUs, resulting in multiple antitrust
    > cases brought against them. It would be a pitty if this tactic
    > succeeded in bringing the demise of AMD. To say that AMD has been
    > hurt by these actions is a given. I sincerely hope they can hold on
    > until the court cases against Intel are resolved successfully. What
    > AMD could have done with extra development money would have been
    > interesting, especially moving to 45nm and ramping up their quadcore
    > speed and production.
    >
    > Unless bragging rights are your thing, or you legitimately need the
    > high power, why support Intel?
    >
    >


    Bragging rights?, heh you are way off track there, I was just admiring
    the cpu really. I guess you haven't read my other posts in this group.
    I have nothing to brag about when it comes to hardware (I am still on a
    p4 2.8) and most of my past machines have been AMD. I guess you missed
    my other post also saying that it would be a real shame if AMD did go
    under. I don't really care what business practices Intel have used, I
    was purely looking at their product which is far superior to AMD's
    offerings. Whether you like their business practices or not you have to
    admire the end product and we can thank AMD for Intel getting to this
    stage which is why we also need AMD to stay in the game so that Intel
    are forced to keep coming up with the goods.

    It is not a case of whether i am supporting Intel or not, I don't care
    what name is on my CPU, I support whoever makes the best CPU for me,
    simple as that.

    I would love to have one of these yes because I like games like Supreme
    Commander that would easily chew up all of that power and then some.
     
    Puddle, Nov 6, 2007
    #4
  5. On a pleasant day while strolling in nz.comp, a person
    by the name of Puddle exclaimed:
    > It is not a case of whether i am supporting Intel or not, I don't care
    > what name is on my CPU, I support whoever makes the best CPU for me,
    > simple as that.


    Yes, agreed, that is the short term smart thing to do,
    but if we all go that route and the bottom drops out of
    AMDs sales, they will be gone promptly and Intel will
    have a monopoly to do as they like. Worse for us all in
    the longer term.

    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
     
    Aaron Lawrence, Nov 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Puddle

    Jerry Guest

    Aaron Lawrence wrote:
    > On a pleasant day while strolling in nz.comp, a person
    > by the name of Puddle exclaimed:
    >> It is not a case of whether i am supporting Intel or not, I don't care
    >> what name is on my CPU, I support whoever makes the best CPU for me,
    >> simple as that.

    >
    > Yes, agreed, that is the short term smart thing to do,
    > but if we all go that route and the bottom drops out of
    > AMDs sales, they will be gone promptly and Intel will
    > have a monopoly to do as they like. Worse for us all in
    > the longer term.


    Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    AMD to keep Intel honest.
     
    Jerry, Nov 6, 2007
    #6
  7. Puddle

    thingy Guest

    Jerry wrote:
    > Aaron Lawrence wrote:
    >> On a pleasant day while strolling in nz.comp, a person by the name of
    >> Puddle exclaimed:
    >>> It is not a case of whether i am supporting Intel or not, I don't
    >>> care what name is on my CPU, I support whoever makes the best CPU for
    >>> me, simple as that.

    >>
    >> Yes, agreed, that is the short term smart thing to do, but if we all
    >> go that route and the bottom drops out of AMDs sales, they will be
    >> gone promptly and Intel will have a monopoly to do as they like. Worse
    >> for us all in the longer term.

    >
    > Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    > AMD to keep Intel honest.
    >


    hence why I now have 2 AMD boxes....however, for my "dream machine" as
    it stands today I would be silly to by AMD as Intel is going to do a
    better job of running games....

    regards

    thing
     
    thingy, Nov 6, 2007
    #7
  8. In message <4730b615$>, Jerry wrote:

    > ... whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need AMD to keep Intel honest.


    I guess I haven't really got a strong preference either way. My first x86
    box was Intel, because I wanted to be conservative--this was my first Linux
    box, so I wanted to be sure everything would work. For my second one, I
    decided to go a bit more bleeding-edge, including running full 64-bit.
    Since AMD were the 64-bit pioneers, I went AMD.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Puddle

    Hank Guest

    >
    > Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    > AMD to keep Intel honest.


    That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.
     
    Hank, Nov 7, 2007
    #9
  10. Puddle

    Nighthawk Guest

    On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:

    >>
    >> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >> AMD to keep Intel honest.

    >
    >That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.


    You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?

    Why don't you google 'AMD Intel antitrust' ? It isn't about AMD
    'can't sort their shit out', as you put it, it is about AMD having
    been damaged by Intel's illegal marketing ploys. Intel have used
    their position of being the dominant CPU maker to illegally put
    pressure on computer builders not to use AMD CPUs, either by paying
    them millions or directly threatening them. Even when AMD were
    producing the highest performance CPUs they weren't able to capitalise
    on it, unable to gain market share on the strength of their superior
    CPUs. This has cost them hundreds of millions (some say billions)
    over the years, monies that could have made a big difference with the
    development of their CPUs.

    The case goes to court in 2008.

    http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf

    Download the PDF for full details of AMD's case.

    Antitrust actions have also been taken against Intel by Germany,
    Japan, Sth Korea and the EU.

    It is highly believed that AMD will win its case against Intel. It is
    much simpler than a Microsoft antitrust case as there is no IP
    complications. Indeed, AMD have had successes already:
    http://www.geek.com/amd-moves-one-step-closer-to-anti-trust-victory/

    AMD does have what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer. There was a
    time when Intel made the fastest CPUs but AMD did well in the low to
    mid range. Not everyone wants the fastest CPU, mostly gameboys. AMD
    still make very good mid range CPUs. It is only with the latest range
    of CPUs that Intel have overtaken AMD. This is not likely to be
    permanent.
     
    Nighthawk, Nov 7, 2007
    #10
  11. Puddle

    Puddle Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >>> AMD to keep Intel honest.

    >> That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >> product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >> fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >> lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >> and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >> sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >> what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.

    >
    > You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?


    Windows XP home and Professional.
    I assume Vista does also.


    >
    > Why don't you google 'AMD Intel antitrust' ? It isn't about AMD
    > 'can't sort their shit out', as you put it, it is about AMD having
    > been damaged by Intel's illegal marketing ploys. Intel have used
    > their position of being the dominant CPU maker to illegally put
    > pressure on computer builders not to use AMD CPUs, either by paying
    > them millions or directly threatening them. Even when AMD were
    > producing the highest performance CPUs they weren't able to capitalise
    > on it, unable to gain market share on the strength of their superior
    > CPUs. This has cost them hundreds of millions (some say billions)
    > over the years, monies that could have made a big difference with the
    > development of their CPUs.
    >
    > The case goes to court in 2008.
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf
    >
    > Download the PDF for full details of AMD's case.
    >
    > Antitrust actions have also been taken against Intel by Germany,
    > Japan, Sth Korea and the EU.
    >
    > It is highly believed that AMD will win its case against Intel. It is
    > much simpler than a Microsoft antitrust case as there is no IP
    > complications. Indeed, AMD have had successes already:
    > http://www.geek.com/amd-moves-one-step-closer-to-anti-trust-victory/
    >
    > AMD does have what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer. There was a
    > time when Intel made the fastest CPUs but AMD did well in the low to
    > mid range. Not everyone wants the fastest CPU, mostly gameboys. AMD
    > still make very good mid range CPUs. It is only with the latest range
    > of CPUs that Intel have overtaken AMD. This is not likely to be
    > permanent.
    >
     
    Puddle, Nov 8, 2007
    #11
  12. Puddle

    Allistar Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:

    > On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >>> AMD to keep Intel honest.

    >>
    >>That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >>product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >>fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >>lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >>and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >>sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >>what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.

    >
    > You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?


    I have a quad core and I wouldn't consider my pockets "deep". I'd imagine
    all modern multi-user OS's utilise a quad-core. I know mine does (Gentoo
    Linux, FWIW), and I very rarely play games these days.
    --
    A.
     
    Allistar, Nov 8, 2007
    #12
  13. Puddle

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:58:21 +1300, Puddle <>
    wrote:

    >Nighthawk wrote:
    >> On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >>>> AMD to keep Intel honest.
    >>> That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >>> product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >>> fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >>> lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >>> and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >>> sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >>> what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.

    >>
    >> You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?

    >
    >Windows XP home and Professional.
    >I assume Vista does also.
    >

    Multicore support in OSand applications are still poorly implimented.
    It is much more complicated to programme for multiple cores than for a
    single. It is widely regarded that there isn't much point going to a
    quad-core in the near future because you won't see the full benefits.
    Few applications utilise quad-core. Perhaps Linux will be in front
    with multi-core support.
     
    Nighthawk, Nov 8, 2007
    #13
  14. Puddle

    Murray Symon Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:

    > On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:58:21 +1300, Puddle <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Nighthawk wrote:
    >>> On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >>>>> AMD to keep Intel honest.
    >>>> That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >>>> product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >>>> fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >>>> lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >>>> and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >>>> sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >>>> what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.
    >>>
    >>> You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?

    >>
    >>Windows XP home and Professional.
    >>I assume Vista does also.
    >>

    > Multicore support in OSand applications are still poorly implimented.
    > It is much more complicated to programme for multiple cores than for a
    > single.


    Not really, its just that its different. Many areas of software development
    have been developing multi-threaded apps for many years. Some game
    developers have complained probably because single-threaded is all they
    know.

    > It is widely regarded that there isn't much point going to a
    > quad-core in the near future because you won't see the full benefits.
    > Few applications utilise quad-core. Perhaps Linux will be in front
    > with multi-core support.


    There is no requirement for each and every programme to utilise all
    available physical processor cores. Now that most modern OSes have many
    background services running, the OS can allocate processors as it sees fit.

    I think this is one reason why it will be a lot harder to evaluate
    comparative performance with benchmark programmes, as it is the mix of
    divers tasks as well as the real-time responsiveness that needs to be
    tested.

    Murray.
     
    Murray Symon, Nov 8, 2007
    #14
  15. Puddle

    Puddle Guest

    Murray Symon wrote:
    > Nighthawk wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:58:21 +1300, Puddle <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>> On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >>>>>> AMD to keep Intel honest.
    >>>>> That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >>>>> product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >>>>> fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >>>>> lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >>>>> and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >>>>> sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >>>>> what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.
    >>>> You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?
    >>> Windows XP home and Professional.
    >>> I assume Vista does also.
    >>>

    >> Multicore support in OSand applications are still poorly implimented.
    >> It is much more complicated to programme for multiple cores than for a
    >> single.

    >
    > Not really, its just that its different. Many areas of software development
    > have been developing multi-threaded apps for many years. Some game
    > developers have complained probably because single-threaded is all they
    > know.


    I agree with that, there are a lot of well coded threaded applications,
    especially in server based applications obviously because servers have
    been where the multi cpu's have been. The only reason why there haven't
    been many threaded applications on peoples desktops is simply that there
    haven't been multi core processors so there was no need to add
    threading. I have heard of plenty of game developers that are very
    excited about being able to take advantage of multiple cores now and
    already there are games out there that are using them.


    >
    >> It is widely regarded that there isn't much point going to a
    >> quad-core in the near future because you won't see the full benefits.
    >> Few applications utilise quad-core. Perhaps Linux will be in front
    >> with multi-core support.

    >
    > There is no requirement for each and every programme to utilise all
    > available physical processor cores. Now that most modern OSes have many
    > background services running, the OS can allocate processors as it sees fit.



    >
    > I think this is one reason why it will be a lot harder to evaluate
    > comparative performance with benchmark programmes, as it is the mix of
    > divers tasks as well as the real-time responsiveness that needs to be
    > tested.
    >
    > Murray.
     
    Puddle, Nov 8, 2007
    #15
  16. Puddle

    Nighthawk Guest

    On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:12:34 +1300, Puddle <>
    wrote:

    >Murray Symon wrote:
    >> Nighthawk wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:58:21 +1300, Puddle <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>>> On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >>>>>>> AMD to keep Intel honest.
    >>>>>> That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >>>>>> product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >>>>>> fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >>>>>> lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >>>>>> and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >>>>>> sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >>>>>> what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.
    >>>>> You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?
    >>>> Windows XP home and Professional.
    >>>> I assume Vista does also.
    >>>>
    >>> Multicore support in OSand applications are still poorly implimented.
    >>> It is much more complicated to programme for multiple cores than for a
    >>> single.

    >>
    >> Not really, its just that its different. Many areas of software development
    >> have been developing multi-threaded apps for many years. Some game
    >> developers have complained probably because single-threaded is all they
    >> know.

    >
    >I agree with that, there are a lot of well coded threaded applications,
    >especially in server based applications obviously because servers have
    >been where the multi cpu's have been. The only reason why there haven't
    >been many threaded applications on peoples desktops is simply that there
    >haven't been multi core processors so there was no need to add
    >threading. I have heard of plenty of game developers that are very
    >excited about being able to take advantage of multiple cores now and
    >already there are games out there that are using them.
    >

    That's all I hear: games games games! So people spend thousands of
    dollars getting the latest mobo with 2 or 4 PCI-e 16x slots, cards to
    fill them and the latest quad-core CPUs, to play games! I wonder what
    percentage of computer users are hardcore gamers?
     
    Nighthawk, Nov 8, 2007
    #16
  17. Puddle

    Puddle Guest

    Nighthawk wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:12:34 +1300, Puddle <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Murray Symon wrote:
    >>> Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:58:21 +1300, Puddle <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Nighthawk wrote:
    >>>>>> On 7 Nov 2007 03:14:00 -0800, Hank <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Or to put it another way, whether you prefer Intel or AMD, we all need
    >>>>>>>> AMD to keep Intel honest.
    >>>>>>> That may be true but why should I spend my money on an inferior
    >>>>>>> product just to prop a company up that can't compete? Im no Intel
    >>>>>>> fanboy and all my past machines have been AMD, even when AMD used to
    >>>>>>> lag behind Intel in the early days but now the performace gap is huge
    >>>>>>> and my next PC will have an Intel Quad in it full stop. If AMD can't
    >>>>>>> sort their shit out its not my problem as they obiviously dont have
    >>>>>>> what it takes to be a CPU manufacturer anymore.
    >>>>>> You must have deep pockets. What OS utilises a quad-core anyway?
    >>>>> Windows XP home and Professional.
    >>>>> I assume Vista does also.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Multicore support in OSand applications are still poorly implimented.
    >>>> It is much more complicated to programme for multiple cores than for a
    >>>> single.
    >>> Not really, its just that its different. Many areas of software development
    >>> have been developing multi-threaded apps for many years. Some game
    >>> developers have complained probably because single-threaded is all they
    >>> know.

    >> I agree with that, there are a lot of well coded threaded applications,
    >> especially in server based applications obviously because servers have
    >> been where the multi cpu's have been. The only reason why there haven't
    >> been many threaded applications on peoples desktops is simply that there
    >> haven't been multi core processors so there was no need to add
    >> threading. I have heard of plenty of game developers that are very
    >> excited about being able to take advantage of multiple cores now and
    >> already there are games out there that are using them.
    >>

    > That's all I hear: games games games! So people spend thousands of
    > dollars getting the latest mobo with 2 or 4 PCI-e 16x slots, cards to
    > fill them and the latest quad-core CPUs, to play games! I wonder what
    > percentage of computer users are hardcore gamers?
    >
    >


    I am sure there are other applications for home users that take
    advantage of multicore cpu's or soon will but gaming I would think would
    be the biggest area. The gaming industry is massive. I would think
    that in most families there will be some kid (or kid at heart) that
    plays games on the computer. Maybe 4 cores is cutting edge now (though
    they start at only 450? dollars) and few games support it but soon
    enough the average game from the computer shop will be recommending
    those cpus and by then the latest games will be wanting 8 cores and so
    on and so on. I wonder if the gaming industry didn't exist and if games
    didn't keep pushing for more power what the state of computers would be?
    As it is, the way things are going we will have computers fast enough
    soon enough to have some real AI...
     
    Puddle, Nov 8, 2007
    #17
  18. Puddle

    sam Guest

    Puddle wrote:

    >
    > I am sure there are other applications for home users that take
    > advantage of multicore cpu's or soon will but gaming I would think would
    > be the biggest area. The gaming industry is massive. I would think
    > that in most families there will be some kid (or kid at heart) that
    > plays games on the computer. Maybe 4 cores is cutting edge now (though
    > they start at only 450? dollars) and few games support it but soon
    > enough the average game from the computer shop will be recommending
    > those cpus and by then the latest games will be wanting 8 cores and so
    > on and so on. I wonder if the gaming industry didn't exist and if games
    > didn't keep pushing for more power what the state of computers would be?
    > As it is, the way things are going we will have computers fast enough
    > soon enough to have some real AI...



    And big too
    "Somewhere between 2020 and 2040 the Machine should exceed 6 billion HB.
    That is, it will exceed the processing power of humanity."

    http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2007/11/dimensions_of_t.php
     
    sam, Nov 8, 2007
    #18
  19. On a pleasant day while strolling in nz.comp, a person
    by the name of Murray Symon exclaimed:
    > There is no requirement for each and every programme to utilise all
    > available physical processor cores. Now that most modern OSes have many
    > background services running, the OS can allocate processors as it sees fit.


    Most of them don't do much though, and those that do
    (like virus or updates) require the hard disk, which is
    naturally serialised anyway..

    Reality is unless you are actually running two demanding
    applications, no real use will be made of your multiple
    cores.

    The canonical examples being "playing a game while
    ripping a cd or encoding video". Which - sure - some of
    us do from time to time... but most don't do it very
    often.


    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
     
    Aaron Lawrence, Nov 9, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. arcade
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
    arcade
    Nov 30, 2006
  2. arcade
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    668
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 30, 2006
  3. Paul Heslop

    Another nail in film coffin

    Paul Heslop, Aug 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    296
    Paul Heslop
    Aug 11, 2005
  4. 7
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    657
    Zu Arsschlaark!
    Sep 19, 2010
  5. Kinon O'Cann

    One more nail in the coffin...

    Kinon O'Cann, May 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    326
    Kinon O'Cann
    Jun 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page