AMD Toledo Dual Core Processor Variations

[gaara]

Dual cores are a good idea, and a step in the right direction. But, i honestly dont ever see it being benificial to anyone except maybe some scientists that need to crunch numbers. I see the 4gb/s bus bandwidth being a major issue in the near future. Obviously they can just design a new motherboard.. But, AMD doesnt write its own motherboard chipsets/specifications. At least they haven't in the past. If it doesn't flop and get pulled in the first 3-4 years, it will eventually replace current home pcs. Dual cores are before their time.

Dual Cores are the ineveitable future dude, single cores have reached their peak as they continue to rise in heat without gaining the ability to sustain the excess temperature gained.

Dual cores are only the beginning, Quad Cores will be the next big thing followed by god knows what, 16 core processors?

Read this and this for more info.

 

[senseless]

They are, and you missed my last sentence.

As far as heat is concerned, im pretty happy with the amd64.. I wouldn't get worried until they start idling around 45c (once you hit like 4ghz, because they're rock solid like that).


Why not just create a 128 bit processor? or 256? or 512? or 2048.. Multiple cores is a temporary solution to the problem, not the answer. Why not dual core 128bit processors? =/

Also, Couldn't people just create their software to be compatible with any bitrate by simply taking the time to make a variable? Sort of like make arch=i386 in linux, obviously if the software doesnt have i386 support it wont compile it.

But, once again.. it doesn't really matter. Amd 64 will be ample power for at least the next 4 years.

 

[horndude]

What the hell are you talking about?

Liquid 6 has been used in SEVERAL multimillion dollar movies. It's the best video editing program ever. Great service & support (at least up until now, avid bought them).. Liquid 6 is like 300$ (With a bob), so.. You have either been getting ripped off, or uhm dont know whats up. The only SMP you want is via SLI. Dual gpu rendering is awesome, especially if you've got 2-3 raptors in raid 0 as your render drive.

.

There's big world out there, digital video doesnt always revolve around the winblows world fortunately.A couple of my clients do this for a living, they gave up windows long ago except for basic office BS.Most of their stuff is custom made anway and way over my head expense wise, but some of it isnt.

Sure movies have been made using liquid 6, appleware, and every other PC format/software out there, there's are more than just one choice, alot more.

 

[gaara]

I'm not saying there are any problems yet (I mean, look at phase change cooling ), but silicon has a fixed melting point. Based on the fact that processors continue to dissipate more and more heat, gradually closing the gap between this melting point, another solution was implemented. Thus, dual cores.

I also agree dual cores aren't a permanent answer, but nothing in the computer engineering world is set in stone. Basically, multiple cores seem to be the best solution Intel and AMD see fit right now. I mean, look at the Prescott core, Intel failed at their 90nm strained silicon process, they originally intended it to hit at least 5GHz, and they haven't even broken 4 yet.

You can't just snap your fingers and expect a new technology to pop out of nowhere mate, it's progressing slowly but steadily, imagine how much it would suck to have a 128 bit chip and a week later a 256 bit chip replace it?

 

[senseless]

*I* make a living doing it

Obviously if you're going to be dealing with 300 hours of video at a time you're going to want a little better setup. Maybe a u320 array, and max out the memory at 3.8gb. Do you even know what windows does? Because, Windows doesn't have anything to do with it. The only thing that would effect video editing is windows overhead, which if your systems are built right will be a nonissue. What is the name of the software for which you speak?

Have you even used liquid 6 (Pro of course)?

The program has to have some platform to run off of, msdos,windows,linux,unix,or otherwise. Unless of course they took the time to create their own operating platform.. We've had 10 years of windows and they still dont have it right... Just out of curiousity, how does 1 rich guy compare to microsoft and the team of coders they have.

I by no means am giving any compliments to microsoft. But, if you're going to talk shit you have to have some sort of solid basis for which to do it.

This reminds me of a guy that once told me " vi is better than pico because it uses less memory "

 

[opticalsky]

Cool dude but that is quite hot but for two processors that really isn't that bad if you think about it because like a standard one runs 30 or so times that by two and then there you go 60

First of all, technically it's not two processors but two cores located in the cpu housing, althought that is very hot but will become something that is standard for a dual-core processor.

Your response is flawed on the "standard one runs 30 or so times by that two and then there you go 60" but is understandable how you could get that answer, you need to see that it's not doubled at all, its still will be always the same speed as its stated. so if the processor is 2.4 GHz that doesn't mean its 4.8Ghz total.

In reality before dual-core can become useful but you need a operating system and applications that have new threading instructions, meaning the software/OS will split the task into two, each core taking one task or giving one core an entire task to do while the other is used for other applications. So that means editing a video will benefit GREATLY from dual-core because it could be basically split into two tasks each core using its 2.4Ghz speed, so in other words one part of the video is being processed at 2.4Ghz and another part is being processed at 2.4Ghz, THAT IS if thats how the software is coded. The other way is you could be encoding a video with one core at 2.4Ghz and doing everyday tasks using the other core at 2.4 Ghz

 

[horndude]

In reality before dual-core can become useful but you need a operating system and applications that have new threading instructions, meaning the software/OS will split the task into two, each core taking one task or giving one core an entire task to do while the other is used for other applications. So that means editing a video will benefit GREATLY from dual-core because it could be basically split into two tasks each core using its 2.4Ghz speed, so in other words one part of the video is being processed at 2.4Ghz and another part is being processed at 2.4Ghz, THAT IS if thats how the software is coded. The other way is you could be encoding a video with one core at 2.4Ghz and doing everyday tasks using the other core at 2.4 Ghz

Exactly, and alot of that type software is already in existence AND being used, and although it isnt nearly as refined as the current incarnation of windows at this time, it still works, and quite well.Dealing with video for example, it isnt too hard to break it up into smaller tasks and send those to multiple processors at the same time, then reassemble the results later and take advantage of the parallel computing power.The other thing is, the way its done now, you either have multiple CPU's or multiple systems, then you get latency issues bewteen systems, that causes bottlenecks.Right now with todays multiuser OS's, running bigger jobs like processing 4GB's worth of video isnt too tough to distribute across many processors, and you can do it the hard way and do it manually, or employ some sort of load balancing program, both work.Clustering has come a LONG way in the last couple years, a multiuser OS with SMP and clustering doesnt care where the procesor is, onboard or on another machine, onboard is faster, making dual core the next step.