Difference between CPU and processor

doesnt matter. you said to put GPU onboard w\CPU. dual and quad cores are simply because of single core clock speed barrier.

either way it is a bad idea.

for reference (looked it up just for you and river win=d):

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6115984/index.html?type=tech

bottom line: single core is better than dual or quad barring the obvious limitations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True today there are terms like multi-core microprocessor which actually means several processors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Phlog no offense but the truth is that you suffer from wishful thinking. You did say that it would be good to have the cpu perform all tasks including GPU. This is not good for a few fundamental reason which i will not reiterate. No sense in repeating whats been said.

Another thing that you apparently do not realize is the clock speed wall that has been or will be hit. That is all there is to it. For ione thing there is a bottleneck w\ memory bandwidth, another is simply heat. Unless every PC will ship refrigerated then you are simply dreaming.

And i know plenty about parallelization...you really think i am stupid?:shrug:

also, why does the GPU sit there doing nothuing? what do you think lights up the pixels on your monitor?

ME: bottom line: single core is better than dual or quad barring the obvious limitations. ”

YOU: BULLSHIT! Because more processors will always be better than one. End of story.

That is just plain WRONG.

I will tell you this - there is a point of diminshing returns when it comes to multiple cores.

 

john,
once you find that the CPU has the speed you need the best approach to increased throughput is paralleled processors.
this approach has two advantages:
first is heat dissipation.
the second is redundancy.

 

i know and it is the only chance. but we are talking about single CPU w\ or w\out multiple cores. Personally i would take a single core- single chip design but that is a pipe dream. Which is the whole reason for multiple cores but phlogistician is ignoring that.

I no longer work on hardware so i am not an expert on multiple cores which came about fairly recently so if i am wrong here so be it but i think what i am saying i accurate.

Put another way one single cpu @ 3Ghz will literally blow the doors off a multiple cpu\core @ 1.5 each. Given the same architecture and this is what i am basing my post's on. Now the issue of memory bandwidth and bus speed comes into play and throws a monkey wrench into the whole system. Not to mention the hardware killer - HEAT.

I could be wrong though so if he can come up with proof then i will accept it.

 

My expertise in this field is atrophied at the point of writing machine code in 1970s for machines with 4k of RAM. Surely, though, it depends what you are trying to do with it. I can see that a single cpu, working on a single problem, could be faster - but does that ever happen today? For practical purposes won't the multiple core, with parallel processing get the job done quicker?

 

hmmm, i dont know too much about the new CPU's to discuss with great detail either. For running multiple programs single core CPU's can do it fine because they have that capability and that is primarily dependant on the OS being able to utilize multiple threads.

My sister has a MacPro with quad cores that i use and run like 6 or 7 programs but the thing about multitasking like that is that i really use one program at a time in a way that the CPU is being hit hard, unless one is rendering or encoding but to be honest it is somewhat counterproductive to do CPU intensive stuff and run another cpu intensive program simultaneously. But an idle program is no big deal. For example two programs rendering a scene or encoding an mpeg, as an example, would take twice as long.

I am sure people will have a different viewpoint on this though. For me clock speed is what i consider most important and of course design. Would be interesting to find out though.

 

wouldn't multi core systems still have a bus bottleneck?

 

Oh, please do reiterate, and tell me why four processors in the CPU isn't as good as one processor plus a GPU, and don't just focus on graphically intensive computing, like games, please tell me when a GPU is of any use outside of games.

Dude, any wall applies to single cores the same as it applies to quads.

I'm typing this up on a quad while ripping a DVD, and I've still got the heating on, John, I'm not huddled over the base unit. Heat is clearly NOT an issue. Also, looking at my performance monitor, no, I have no bottlenecks throttling my performance.

Clearly, you don't seem to grasp that a GPU is just a single use of a parallel processor!

The GPU isn't always fully utilised is it? It's a hardware solution, for a problem you don't always have (needing to render graphics quickly). Software solutions, are more flexible, ie, using a processor to render graphics when needed, and using the same processor, running a different task (like DVDFab), when fast high quality graphics aren't required, like, when I'm just web browsing.

I've got four 2.4Ghz processors in my inexspensive media centre box, I'm currently typing on. What's the fastest single core available? 4+Ghz? I've got 4x2.4Ghz, = 9.6Ghz available, and as Windows runs multiple processes, one core can run 100% of an app, while the others run the windows tasks. Please tell me how many applications require a single processor, because they run faster, and then tell me that's the case for most home or even business users to make you point.

Depends on the application, obviously. Home users, quad core is more than enough, but having built a Beowulf cluster before, more is always better.

Oh, and also, please tell me why the entire computing industry is favouring multiple cores, if they are wrong, John. Go on, that should alone should be the focus of your reply.

 

Yes.

The cores compete for several aspects of processing.

But there is an improvement in performance even though that is a fact.

What you really come down to is the sophistication of the OS in tune with the motherboard and the CPU.

Windows is not a sophisticated OS in that regard, various flavours of UNIX are much better, Solaris is the best.

 

Phlogisstician,

http://news.cnet.com/Intel-kills-plans-for-4GHz-Pentium/2100-1006_3-5409816.html

Like i said, somehow i knew this about the time of 3GHz. You know just a feeling you get. But who knows what the future will bring.

 

You say 'what the future will bring' after linking to a an article published four years ago?

What's your point, exactly?

Anyway, please stop wasting posts, you are supposed to be explaining why the entire computing industry is wrong to make dual and quad core processors, aren't you?

 

No kidding, i knew when it was published and isnt is still relevant? If you will not take his word for it and cannot admit that YOU are wrong then what else is there to say?

 

Besides, i just went looking for something like that after i read your post because i figured there would be something on it. But never in my wildests dreams did i think i would find something like that. That is a blockbuster\smoking gun to support my argument.

 

Someone probably already posted this in the thread, but the acronym CPU stands for "Central Processor Unit". People just call it Processor sometimes.

 

I'm wrong about what? Have you changed what the discussion is about?

I have said that multiple cores are more efficient, than a single core and GPU.

That article clearly states that limitations with a single cores have caused manufacturers to explore other avenues. That makes MY point, not yours.

 

After reading that article, I come the exact opposite conclusion. the only thing that could possibly be considered anti-multicore is this line:

"Programs, of course, will need to be written to take advantage of additional processor cores."

...which can hardly be considered the fault of the hardware itself.

As far as I am aware, the only downside to multi-core systems is the organizational overhead in allocating the additional resources. This is what keeps a dual-core system from reaching double the performance of an otherwise identical single-core part.

here are some numbers; look at which parts are dual core, which have the highest clockspeed/largest on-die cache, and notice how the list stacks.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2008-q1-2008/3D-Studio-Max-9,369.html

for those saying that it's been a while since they've played around in the guts of a processor, here's a overview of Intel's new model - the Core i7:
http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-940-965/

 

Did you see where he metions heat and clock speed? I glanced through the article and once i saw it mention the heat factor than i just figured i was right about what my earlier post has already stated.

Maybe i am wrong as far as new technology because i have not kept up with this stuff for a few years but i found that article very interesting.

 

You are wrong. Quad cores are not causing Global Warming ffs.