Technofyed

You kind of missed my point man. Let me explain some more. There will be no use for the multi-core processor design when a single processor is developed capable of far faster processing speed. Such a processor would compute so fast it would be pointless to distribute, and process that information between individually linked micro-processors.

uh, well, i can see how that would happen, but no computing power is infinite. so the next logical step to go would be to take one of those prossesors that are so fast they are pointless to distribute,... and distribute them into multiple cores. then you have 2 cores that are as described, then 3, then 4, 5, 6, ect.

it's as simple as more power. the bigger the capacities get to be able to compute with the larger and more dynamic computer programs and applications will expand.

i mena why would you bother paying an ass load of money for such a described processor, when your most demanding program only uses 5%(exaduration) of it. either your not going to buy that large a processor or your going to get bigger programs. and then the bigger programs will get bigger until you need an even larger processer. it's standard escalation.

Yeah and (Standard Escalation) means a steady increase in prices lol

Spartan, when talking to Slayer you have to realize what he means isn't always what he says. By the way Slayer, it's 'exaggeration'.

I will have to keep that in mind lol

Quote:Trust me there are some physics simulations that require months to process even on the fastest computers available. I guess the furthest gaming could go is full virtual reality. Just like The Matrix movie.

What I find funny about this whole multi-core phase is I'm thinking we will eventually go back to a single core design when new technology is developed. Obviously this is where nano-technology is going to make the difference. Not so say current processor chips are not impressive! It's amazing how many integrated circuits, transistors, resistors, etc, go into the making of a CPU on the nearly microscopic level.

Beam Me up Scotty. . . . Glad you made it on board Matt.

(09-01-2009 05:05 PM)solidspartan117 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah and (Standard Escalation) means a steady increase in prices lol

what? i thought that was standard inflation. but yes, some of my terms and phrases you have to use in context

(08-30-2009 12:29 PM)RWenger Wrote: [ -> ]Eight-core processors exist, and if I have heard correctly, so do 16- and 32-core processors. The companies just don't want to release them yet. If you think about it, it makes a lot of business sense.

More over, once processors of that capacity are released, you'll see more centralized processing in virtualization, & it will make more sense, from a financial, economical, & administrative standpoint. So for every say... 10 processors that they sell now, they may only end up selling one. The prices go up, customers get upset... yeah. These style processors will be released in small quantities, with technological leaps & bounds being made between each release.

Yeah, I think every hardcore custom builder will want one

I was going to post another thread on this but I thought that this would be a good place.

New Processor Will Feature 100 Cores

Is that a joke?

I don't think so. I think that site is fairly reputable. I'm doing research about CPUs for a symposium project. From what we have, that number of cores would probably not be very effective (for the cost).

Oh it won't be. Not too much really is at first but it goes down later. For example I was watching a history channel show on 80s technology recently & the first cd player cost $900!!! The first portable cell phone called "the brick" was $4000!!! As a more recent example think about Bluray & HD-DVD when they first came out. The players where over $1000. I think that if you really want to be among the first to experience the newest technology you will really pay for them but later on the price will drop. Just because it will be expensive doesn't mean that they won't release it anyway and that doesn't mean that it won't sell. Time will tell.

What I find disappointing about that CPU is that it won't be usable on 7. Now future windows OSs might be able to use it & maybe even later 7 service packs but initially only specially designed operating systems will be able to use it. It could be a failure because of that limitation. That's probably because they didn't build the intel based instruction set into the processor but they might not be able to. My guess would be that either intel is preventing them from including it or perhaps the current version of the intel instruction set can't use it. For a processor to be usable by an OS either the OS has to have the processor's instruction set built in it or the processor must have a compatible instruction set in it.

(10-26-2009 08:51 AM)solidspartan117 Wrote: [ -> ]Is that a joke?

I believe that there were talks of IBM making a 100 core processor for the PS3, when it was still in prototype development.

---

(10-26-2009 12:30 PM)townsbg Wrote: [ -> ]That's probably because they didn't build the intel based instruction set into the processor but they might not be able to.

The instruction set doesn't change. The registers in a cpu are based on what bit rate they are, 8 bit, 16 bit, 32 bit, & 64 bit. So the OS limitation is based on the ability (or lack there of) to address the cpus. Not the instruction set included with the OS. The same problem exists with RAM & storage. The OS can only address so much. The limits used to be 2 gb, & then 32gb, & so on.

But this is because it's an Intel chip set. If you were referring to the spark cpu, or another variant manufacturer, then yes, the OS can't use the cpu based on the instruction set.

(10-26-2009 04:07 PM)no2pencil Wrote: [ -> ]But this is because it's an Intel chip set. If you were referring to the spark cpu, or another variant manufacturer, then yes, the OS can't use the cpu based on the instruction set.

This isn't an Intel chip but Tilera. It did mention an Intel processor in development that is suppose to have 80 cores.

Then yes, without the instruction set, the OS can't use the chip. Yet another wonderful feature of Open Source operating systems. This stuff can be added in That's how Linux is able to run on iPods & DS lite systems that use Arm processors, as well as Sun systems that use Sparc (RISC) technology.

The problem isn't the CPU's, it's the programmers who need to get into gear. You can have a Duodecuple CPU but unless they write a programme that can use it then it's useless.

I would have to disagree. One example is a program that simulates the development of our universe. Running on one of the worlds fastest supercomputers this program takes weeks to complete.

I meant for home use lol, Like AVG or gaming