2016/11/20 02:32:31
stalinx20
bill1024
One thing with win10 and now DX12, DX12 is supposed to be able to use more cores, the more the better.
But it is up to the programmers to develop the software. I see it all the time, the programmers drag their feet
 
I am not impressed with the improvements Intel had made, they can do better.
I have Haswel, Ivybridge, sandy bridge and Westmere CPUs as well as a couple different AMD cores.
My overclocked x5660 hexcore core for core is as fast as my Haswel stock in several programs.
Rather than just raw speed, there are so many instruction sets built in, again the programmers need to step up and develop the software to take advantage. If a program could use AVX, AVX2, F16c and FMA3 and the other instructions
AVX can make a hell of a lot of difference, I have seen some of what it can do
 
We are stuck with what Intel wants to give us, with so little competition to put some fire under their butt why would they...
We are also at the mercy of the programmers to come up with better software.
 
 
 


I'm only hoping Intel can crack that 5.0ghz barrier while running stable without the need of watercooling and/or increased voltages; let's face it, the real test for a stable clock is the use of an air-cooler within regular voltage parameters. Silicone is clearly showings its limitations, and Intel/AMD are going to have to come up with another solution/metal (quite possibly an advanced, technological method) to overcome such speeds; even finfet sizes are starting to hesitate and show certain roadblocks, giving companies struggles to overcome the barrier. Just look at Pascal and how many issues they have had. They will have to do something soon. Only time will tell. All of us may not even see such new technology until we're all long gone.


2016/11/20 07:11:47
NazcaC2
The misconception one may have is that the regular consumer reads email and plays Candy Crush. It's really the divide between a business and an individual. Individuals vary too so I really wouldn't rule out multi-core CPUs as an asset for consumers.

If you want to single out the individual who buys the computer for basic tasks like email, YouTube and other media playback - a dual-core or quad-core is adequate. 4K is a bit more taxing but even a quad-core Braswell Celeron is able keep up.

All of us are really consumers too and some of us aren't exactly cheap, buying multiple video cards, etc. I did buy Adobe CS4 Design Premium for about $1500 CDN at the time. Video processing can be had for about $65+ (Cyberlink PowerDirector)...
2016/11/20 09:37:25
ManBearPig
stalinx20
No, I said there was no decent "consumer based" app/program that can utilize "more than 4 cores" sufficiently. Do not twist my words.

Not twisting your words at all, you yourself said it.
stalinx20
ManBearPig
On topic: give me 22 cores 

with ~20 of them sitting idling. 

You said that if I had a 22 core CPU that 20 of them would be sitting idle.
2016/11/21 11:15:47
Xavier Zepherious
XrayMan
 
Intel's taking a page from AMD and trying to squeeze out more CPU performance in its new Xeon E5-2699A v4 chip.     Link


monster core ?? i don't think so
read this
http://forums.evga.com/Intels-Flagship-Xeon-E52699-V5-SkylakeEP-CPU-Leaked-Features-32-Cores-64-Threads-m2586143.aspx 
32 core 64 thread coming in 6 months
 
and then expect even higher core counts after that
2016/11/21 16:42:37
NazcaC2
It's still a monster vs a four or six core CPU.
2016/11/22 00:29:24
stalinx20
ManBearPig
stalinx20
No, I said there was no decent "consumer based" app/program that can utilize "more than 4 cores" sufficiently. Do not twist my words.

Not twisting your words at all, you yourself said it.
stalinx20
ManBearPig
On topic: give me 22 cores 

with ~20 of them sitting idling. 

You said that if I had a 22 core CPU that 20 of them would be sitting idle.


Exactly. You all are missing my point out of this whole entire thread; Why are they only stacking more cores on top and not allowing cores to take on more than 2 commands at once? Why not have Hyperthreading which does 4 commands at once for each core? Why can't they make a single core stronger than what it currently is? Why can't they make the processors run faster passed 5.0ghz on standard cooling? Why why why. No, I mean for real, that's no joke. Yes, most of those cores will sit idling for the things you do MBP. But by all means, we can continue arguing about it if you'd like, I know for a fact you're not into heavy CAD or even Video Editing, don't even deny it. You'd waste your money, and a lot of it. But that's ok right? YOu get to tell everybody you have a 22-core proc. Good for you. I still rest my case.
2016/11/22 06:40:57
Xavier Zepherious
stalinx20
ManBearPig
stalinx20
No, I said there was no decent "consumer based" app/program that can utilize "more than 4 cores" sufficiently. Do not twist my words.

Not twisting your words at all, you yourself said it.
stalinx20
ManBearPig
On topic: give me 22 cores 

with ~20 of them sitting idling. 

You said that if I had a 22 core CPU that 20 of them would be sitting idle.


Exactly. You all are missing my point out of this whole entire thread; Why are they only stacking more cores on top and not allowing cores to take on more than 2 commands at once? Why not have Hyperthreading which does 4 commands at once for each core? Why can't they make a single core stronger than what it currently is? Why can't they make the processors run faster passed 5.0ghz on standard cooling? Why why why. No, I mean for real, that's no joke. Yes, most of those cores will sit idling for the things you do MBP. But by all means, we can continue arguing about it if you'd like, I know for a fact you're not into heavy CAD or even Video Editing, don't even deny it. You'd waste your money, and a lot of it. But that's ok right? YOu get to tell everybody you have a 22-core proc. Good for you. I still rest my case.


each core doing 4 commands at once - then it wouldn't be 4 core  or the instruction set would be kinda complex
 
what you want are instruction pipelines to each core and that adds chip complexity and heat as well - so slower chips (but better utilized if the OS is made to handle it)
currently intel uses a 14 stage pipeline for each core
http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/general-programming/a-journey-through-the-cpu-pipeline-r3115 
 
 
if you want better performance look at M$ for software design - bad OS design leads to poor utilization of the current chips we have now
M$ 6,7 or 10 is not a symetrical  OS
 
and again i will remind you this
Heat and leakage is the problem to most chips so there is speed barrier we are hitting
the closer you get the traces/circuits together in the chip - the traces act like capacitors and you have leakage - power jumping circuits - causing heat 
let alone the imperfections in the etching/fab process that makes the traces rough/imperfect-(closer together) in some spots leading to further leaking or arching
and pushing more power to circuits(to have higher clocks) only lends to more leakage and arching and more heat
 
then add in circuit and chip communication latency - and more transistors complexity doesn't mean more speed
try reading VSLI design
https://books.google.ca/books?id=gdRStcYgf2oC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=chip+circuit+latency&source=bl&ots=MJDOazZdXM&sig=FBRNJ9OwrXbeyhFdXjZQj8qbWv0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM_NKeyLzQAhVpq1QKHcvYBTc4ChDoAQhKMAc#v=onepage&q=chip%20circuit%20latency&f=false
 
 
and we keep pushing the circuits closer together - hence we have less room to push the voltage - and less overclocking room
shrinking doesn't necessarily improve speed
 
what we need is better bandwidth(memory - on chip and onboard)
and better core utilization - and that means optimization at the OS level you can have all the speed in the world but if the software is not designed for multiple cores it will use fewer cores
we see that with some games only using 2 core some only 1 core and some using as many as they can
and your are still at mercy of the OS which doesn't assign cores well either specially M$ - linux is better
 
more cores are better in my opinion - AV software is getting big and cpu intensive
you want to protect you system 24/7 even while gaming that takes cpu cores and you still need cpu core for the OS and background tasks at the same time - AND you want to game too??
more is better
 
like compresssing a video file in DivX and runing AV software and gaming simultaneouesly - that be nice

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account