How far will processors go? I feel that there is some limit of usage we would experience like when there is a quadcore 2.4 GHz processor which is sufficiently fast for most people then who would ever need to upgrade their PC again (save money )

procs will either go multithreaded(multiple threads per core, multiple cores per processor) or increase in speed (subjected to semicon advancements)

do u think todays Qcores & latest gpu can cope VR?
so it's have plenty of room to enhance more.. to fulfill the needs..
don't worry everage users will be forced to keep buying then..

in the future i think we will run MP and no more UP,and maybe UP the highest can go to Octa-Core.

for now maybe Quad is enough,for the upcoming application will need at least 8 core,who knows?

WE NEED SEX CORES DAMMIT!
The future depends on the outcome of the technology race between intel and AMD tho. Not to mention software devs. What good do having a multicore system when the software cannot take advantage of it?

Yeah, agree with linkinstreet, majority of the software dev havent really fully utilize the usage of multiple cores proc yet.

I think normal PC users nowadays dunno even have the typing skills to utilize one single core. Ka ka ka.

Lemme get this straight. In single threded software, single core proc @ 2.6G will be faster than 2.6G multi-core proc? and y izit?I mean, shouldnt multicore have their "auto-balancing" feature? or w/ single threaded apps/software, only 1 core will be working hard n the others will be in idle mode?

I think if Intel or AMD can make software think of their multicore cpu as one, it would be a lot easier. Many companies would be reluctant to spent money to get their programs to recognise multicore.

you don't need to. It will just use single core as default.
It's never about recognise multicore, but to UTILISE all of it so that it will become faster.

Yeah I also heard that a Intel Pentium 4 3.0GHz Extreme Edition and other high tech single core processors is quicker than some dual cores ( I'm not pretty sure what is it either Intel Or AMD ). I also don't know why

its benchmark dependant leh...and pentium 4 3.0 EEdition will still lose to a celeron 4xx series oced to 3.0ghz except for maybe cache dependant benchmarks

What the Is that possible?! Celeron OCed to 3.0GHz? Wow. What's the difference with Pentium D and Pentium Core 2 Duo? Anyway about the topic there still a majority of softwares that did not take advantage of the quad cores speed.

damm, i still using single core

Why is that a problem? I'm also single core. Just don't have enough money to change to dual core. A lot changing including my mobo.

It's not about the speed, but how the software utilises the extra cores. if the software can use all teh cores possible, even a 1.8Ghz Dual Core can beat a 3.0Ghz single core.

not necesarily... the "auto-balancing" feature actually slows down the the process so tat things won teleport here to there...

tat would be AMD X2 and Pentium D's... they are freaking slow... juz imagine... PD 3.0 + 512MB RAM does 44sec on 1M SuperPI tat's almost same wif AMD X2 3800+ at almost same price... while Intel Celeron 420(Conroe-L) 1.6GHz which is basically C2D wif single core and 512Kb cache does 38 sec... and my frenz rig(which i built) did 28sec at 2.8GHz...

there's no Pentium Core 2 Duo... and Quad Core is juz a race/war subject/battlefield between AMD & Intel... Software Developers juz couldn't keep up... Maybe Norton can since it eats up 3quarter of most average rigs's resources...

ok, its a noob question, so is multicore proc actually will make watever we r doing more faster, or allowing us 2 do multi tasking more smoothly? or even both..?

The ideal scenario is both. Right now, it's leaning more towards multi-tasking gains (the average pc user scenario), whereas the next (harder) step would be to utilize all processor cores for speed gains.

2x Xeon Quad Core 2.66GHz for server
24GB RAM
10x 146GB SAS



Attached thumbnail(s)

From what I've observed with the increase in multi-core CPU, the mainly only serve 2 purpose. 1. Heavy Multi-Media/Video Editing 2. Latest in gaming. Hence with the ever new stuff that's coming out, the CPU and GPU will continue to be better and better. There's like no limit to it.

Here's an interesting "reason": TG Daily - Ray tracing to kill off the GPU? Intel thinks yes

yeah... theoritically tat's y they developed it... but then the problem lies in the OS and software... apparently software developers don do well in core management... multi-core system don show obvious improvement to an average user which makes it hard for sellers to promote them...

yeah... thanks to the Waaagh between Intel(Tau) vs AMD(Eldar) and ATI(Chaos) vs nVidia(Imperial guards)
they juz wanna show who's the better 1 by producing better technologies(to dominate their respective markets)

LoL,bro true man,at least 2k for u to change to a core processor..takes time man..

No matter what, microprocessor will keep upgrading, that's one of the way to keep the IT economic industries moving.

nope... sub RM1k can get the system unit already... price already drop la...

actually among most IT economics... IT accessories are the best and easiest selling 1... not the proc...

yep. there are not much applications optimized for quad core operations except for some server applications. But some latest game titles will have advantage from multi-cores. i've read it somewhere, try tomshardware.com


1k can barely buy a system lol. but a very basic system u will get. we are in the world of technologies right? we are subconsciously 'forced' to use latest and greatest IT accessories/gadgets to assist us in real life.

Well for AMD, i wonder which one they want to concentrate, making better GPUS or better CPU.

Processor+motherboard+ram+casing+monitor 1k can get?i don't think it's possible..

if for games, dual core is still good enough (tomshardware compared dual and quad core procs in gaming and etc)
Quad core shines in more video encoding and audio encoding and the others.

Quad core or more multi-cores are also for multi-user DB/servers and virtual machine, like VMware or multi access like Citrix. It'll perform better.

However, it won't perform much better than a single core, if you are using it as file server.

nah... only gamers, graphic designers, and video encoders are forced to do so... not some average office clerk...

without monitor around RM850 can get d lor... give u Samsung 17" LCD monitor total up RM1380 can get d lor...
or Dell Recon 17" CRT monitor for RM1099 total(include CPU, mouse, keyboard and monitor)... good enough to office work...

not all games ler...
most new dx10 games make use of quad core and show some increment in gaming performance...

wahhaha...so i need to upgrade my dx9 to dx10 for me to play dx10 games ah? aiyaaa...

dx10 only available in vista if I not mistake...so for XP, you can't upgrade ur dx9 to dx10 though...

currently not many applications out there can support full quad core outcome rite??
maybe in another half a year??

This post has been edited by v1rtual: Oct 28 2007, 04:45 AM

Anyway, Apple desktop (Mac Pro) is running on 8 core if i not mistaken. But the price oso

http://www.applemalaysia.com.my/macpro/

i m using a lappie with an amd turion x2 1.8ghz....anyone know any website that offers a review of this proc?also comparison with mobile C2D; which is better?turion x2 or c2d?

ps: what is the best software to benchmark only proc?is pcmark good enough?

I believe raster is still superior to ray tracing. Especially due to the simple fact of ambience, since games are moving away from player centric maps and schemes and more towards the real life ideal of location centricism ray tracing holds less and less promise. Plus it's bloody inefficient and only deals with first order reflections/refractions well, thus i think it'll work well in old gen FPSes where pure fragging was the goal of the day and a player centric map was at hand, but these days, with more open arenas that are designed for immersion, nah.

Intel has their Larrabee agenda in promoting RT, so don't take their words as fact.

Yeah Cool. Single core still rules.........hahaha

im using a single core on my lappy, a 1.4 celeron at that. it's works

Source

I found a news from DailyTech.. which quotes "Intel Slates Nehalem for Q4 2008"..



hahaha... i guess i'll skip penryn though.. coz oledi have q66... will wait for Nehalem and/or AMD solution then decide which one.. also means I will stop at P35 chipset then wait for new socket

This post has been edited by baok: Oct 29 2007, 02:43 AM