|
That counts as 4, right?? 
How can one have 5 or 3 cores?? Two processors, one dual/quad and the other single? Can it be done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mit 32 KernenWow und ich dache meine 8 währe schon der Hammer
Was für eine Maschine ist das denn?
|
|
|
|
|
Δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι κατάλαβα τι είπες. Δεν ξέρω γερμανικά. [Greek]
|
|
|
|
|
It is all double-Dutch to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the human babelfish service:
stratmann1024 wrote: With32 cores. Wow! I thought my 8 were great. What kind of machine is that?
Next time, please try a little bit of English!
This statement is false.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for translation
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. What types of systems could have odd numbers of CPUs? I'm trying to picture a system with 3...
I mean...we're talking our main systems and not the artifact in the garage gathering dust.
No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
-irresponsibility@Despair.com
|
|
|
|
|
Check out AMD Phenom X3
Zolee
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! Wow...that's pretty wild. So, an X3 is simply an Phenom X4 CPU where one of the cores has failed... I suppose it works for some people.
IMO, I would be concerned about using a CPU where one of the cores has already failed. Especially as my main where the bread and butter are made.
No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
-irresponsibility@Despair.com
|
|
|
|
|
quinton1969 wrote: Thanks! Wow...that's pretty wild. So, an X3 is simply an Phenom X4 CPU where one of the cores has failed
Not exactly. It's in the process of making cpus a high percentage of them will have defects of various degrees. These defects will vary depending on their location in the wafer and other factors. Chips will be tested to see the highest frequency they can operate with the defects and still remain stable. Using this process AMD and Intel sell chips of the same stepping with different frequencies instead of just 1 frequency. So for AMD in the case of the 4 core chip, 1 of the 4 has so many defects that the whole chip would have to be reduced below some frequency the chip is tried as a 3 core device and the same testing is done to optimize the performance and thus price they can sell the same silicon for. If it fails this it will either be recycled or tried as a 2 core chip (K10 only).
John
modified on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the 486SX I had; same as a 486DX but with no co-processor. I assume it was supposed to be a DX but the co-processor failed so they disabled it and sold it for less.
|
|
|
|
|
Its almost like having a mini super computer at finger tips! 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in the near future we will be able to conduct nuclear weapons testing in our home desktops! Oups! Wouldn't that be illegal? 
|
|
|
|
|
You need a supercomputer like Roadrunner at LLNL to do that, which has ~200,000+ cores.
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. But remember that testing of nuclear weapons does not have a "static" definition. Back in the 1960-70's the testing of these weapons was conducted with computers not more powerful that the ones me and you have in our house now. However we now think of "nuclear weapons testing" as something that contains the analysis of the blast and all the interactions between particles during that blast, so - yes - for that kind of thing we need 200,000 processors...
|
|
|
|
|
I'd assume a single chip/32 cores will be available to everyone have one sometime in 2012. However this chip will be a CPU/GPU hybrid.
John
|
|
|
|
|
...how there are more CodeProject readers with dual-core, and even quad-core, now than single-core.  Gotta love the proliferation of multicore computing.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the advantages and low prices of those CPUs, it's really not surprising. No one would choose a single core CPU over a multi core CPU these days.
|
|
|
|
|
I would if it were twice as fast as its dual core version - for the same price
|
|
|
|
|
But not without HT... and then it would not count as a single core according to this poll 
|
|
|
|
|
Sure without HT, if the dual core didn't have HT (which it can't have or it wouldn't count as dual core according to this poll)
It would still always be at least as fast as the dual core. Faster as soon as anything isn't multi-threaded (such as most games)
|
|
|
|
|
For me, it would have to be A LOT faster to compensate the lack of HT. Having a totally unresponsive system while compiling or just printing was a true pain back in the days. But such a CPU would be good for a true slave machine...
|
|
|
|
|
Like my Alphas?
But I guess that's why the poll says "on your main machine".
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is because single-core x86 processors are mostly not being produced anymore and they lost the price point where it makes sense. When you can get a used Q6600 for $100 USA what is the point? On top of that most quads can be had for less than $300 and a lot of dual cores for less than $100, heck some are less than $50. I got my core2 quad Q9550 + 6GB quality (corsair xms) of ddr2 memory + ASUS P5Q Pro + 650W 80+ power supply for around $400 US total.
And then there is power. A single core chip made 2 to 3 years ago when Intel and AMD ended single core production is likely to use more power than a dual core chip made today.
John
modified on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:15 AM
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
