8-core CPU

AMD Bulldozer has 8-cored CPU,
how about Intel?
The core i7 is only 4-core

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Core i7 Extreme has 6 cores with hyperthreading (so it has 12 virtual cores). Intel's Sandy Bridge E series and the upcoming Ivy Bridge architecture supposedly include 8-core processors with hyperthreading (so 16 virtual cores).

(Information mostly gleaned from various Wikipedia pages related to Intel's Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge architectures.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Intel I7-2600k out performs AMD Bulldozer in nearly every benchmark and as far as I am aware the I7-3960X (as przyk mentioned) has 6x2 threads at up to 3.9GHz. It also has 15mb L3 cache -- cache misses are pretty expensive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, when AMD will overtake Intel?

 

Probably around the time hell freezes over. Though it would be nice if they did. Right now Intel doesn't have any competition in high performance CPU's. They've shifted their attention away from improving what they currently have to other matters, and until someone can seriously challenge them they won't have any incentive to improve.

 

So . . . are we now approaching the '8-fold way' via computer processors?

 

Not sure I know what you're talking about or if it's just a joke

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. But no.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hypervisor kernel sharing has alleviated the need for such measures for the foreseeable future.

 

Chipz . . . . . 8-Fold (Way) CPUs . . . . meant to be contemplatively humorous . . . . ref to eastern traditions

 

Alienware m-17x

 

but intel is not good in making graphic chips like nvidia and ATI radeon.

 

Saint: Okay...and? Isn't this thread about 8-core CPU's?

 

Yes, it is.
I want to know why AMD is lagging behind intel?

 

The only way AMD will overtake Intel is if you get games and operating systems that can utilize all the cores. Most games now are just being optimized for dual core and very few are quad core optimized.

 

I thought in porn 3D was the next big thing, not more speed...

 

why porn, do it yourself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

? Do you realize that with intel chips the code does not specifically have to be optomized to utilize all the cores because it has hardware based (i.e. on the chip itself) things that can split processes if its possible(its not always possible though)?

Do you also realize that intel chips beat the snot out of AMD chips in threaded applications as well? More cores != faster. An I7 2600k would destroy a cell processer which has 8 cores. An older QX9650 which is quad core is generally out performed by 2 core I5's and even some I3's.

Intel is winning the war because their chips are more effecient at processing(couldn't think of better word lol) so even if all the specs are the same on the AMD chip the intel chip is still faster (and more $$$$$). AMD chips have had much fast FSB speeds and larger cache sizes then intel for while with the same clock speed or faster and intel chips WERE STILL FASTER.

The only advantage they really had was price and that has all but vanished now.

Don't just take my word for it, Toms hardware is one of the best sites I've found for product compairisons and what not. They actually test the components themselves for their compairsons to get real world data and it is tested on working tasks and games. Educate yourself.

http://www.tomshardware.com/

For laptop part compairisons notebook check is the bomb

http://www.notebookcheck.net/

Don't think me a fanboy though, I am currently very unhappy with intel at the moment. I think they have gotten a bit shady lately. They have made processors now that are labeled as an I7, but they only have 2 cores and are cheaper. Many consumers just see I7 on the box and trust that they are getting the best (or close too it) for a cheap deal but they are actually buying an inferiour product. It seems underhanded and designed to prey on people without the time to research on such things which is most computer buyers in this day and age.

 

New design != faster

Apple not magic, they got out of that game a while ago for reason. I actually hope this is not correct unless its a cell phone/ipad level chip, then its a good idea!

 

When did AMD beat comparable Intel FSB? As far as I recall they always had much poorer throughput which was for a time the big hindrance. It's interesting you bring this up, I was just working on basic bench-marking of the cost of cache misses on virtual context switches. The first one shows the effect with floating point calculations on virt-cores, the second one shows the cost of cache misses where per-core activity overloaded the instructional cache and perhaps even jumped the L3 cache, though it's equally likely L2 was evicted on context switches.

Code:

 --------------
Intel i7 2600k
--------------
L1 -- 32kb + 32kb
L2 -- 256KB x 4
L3 -- 8mb 

// Multi-core prime number solver (0 --> 100000)
8 core No-Thresh    ==> 17.5 s
6 core No-Thresh    ==> 20.0 s
8 core 75%            ==> 38.5 s
8 core 95%          ==> 38.5 s
8 core 99%          ==> 32.3 s

// ffmpeg -- (Note: -threads 0 translates to -threads MAX_THREADS)
-vf scale=480:272 -vcodec libx264 -coder 1 -flags +loop+cgop -cmp +chroma
-partitions +parti8x8+parti4x4+partp8x8+partb8x8 -me_method hex -subq 7
-me_range 16 -g 250 -keyint_min 25 -sc_threshold 40 -i_qfactor 0.71
-b_strategy 1 -qcomp 0.6 -qmin 0 -qmax 69 -qdiff 4 -bf 3 -refs 3 -directpred 1
-trellis 1 -flags2 +bpyramid+mixed_refs+wpred+dct8x8+fastpskip -wpredp 2 -b
500k -threads 0 -acodec libfaac -ab 96k

8 core No-Thresh    ==> 48.99s, 49.22s
6 core No-Thresh    ==> 45.54s, 45.57s
4 core No-Thresh    ==> 48.62s, 48.77s
8 core 75%          ==> 1m 29s
8 core 95%          ==> 1m 22s
8 core 99%          ==> 1m 17s

This caught me by surprise when I read Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2620M CPU @ 2.70GHz. It caught a lot of people by surprise because it was released at the same time as the 2600 and the 2600k, the differences were unclear. The first is a low-power consumption 2-core with essentially old(er) technology, the 2600 had older on-chip GPU and locked bios, the 2600k was fully unlocked. I think the Apple Laptop was the only one with the proper 2600.

 

I had a single core and it was very quick but then I bought a dual core and it really was much faster so I really can't tell the differences between the four core and dual core when I use a friends that has one installed on his. The speeds seem to be immeasurable to the common person who uses either one of them but probably does have some benefits to those who are engineers in the computer field.