|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: ...... |
 |
|
Guess you jumpped on the core duo a bit too soon huh??
I can see a quad coming for me in the not too distant future !!! YeeHaa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry CL, but you knew I was right when I wrote this:
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Delirium's Brother wrote: |
| I was reading on another board, that the general consensus is that multi-threaded games are about 2-3 years out. Just about the time that Cubanlord will be considering an upgrade to his system (i.e. the one he just built). |
Ha! I bet he upgrades something by Christmas. |
Last edited by Thunndarr on Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dodgy Al
Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Only two types of computer there are: a prototype... and an obsolete"
yoda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazblanc77
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought that it was pretty much common knowledge that quadcores were coming out soon. In fact, the same week that CL was raving about his new system, there was another thread about quadcore chips. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry CL, but....
Things are moving fast, but don't forget that your dual-core system will still rock very hard for a long time. Even against the quad cores for the first year, your setup will keep pace. Any differences will be like 120FPS vs. 245.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| like 120FPS vs. 245.... |
 .....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
    |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, it looks bad, mate, but it's actually meaningless at either of those framerates.
Funny that coding for dual-core is still in the infancy stage, yet quad-core is on the doorstep.
Anyways, I can't help but feeling that quad-core is a load of bunk. It will mean something later, but unless they come up with a new idea about parallelism (how to combat potential problems, existing problems), they will continue to try to make us believe that a quad-core setup is better than a single CPU @ 8GHz. Why? Because parallelism is relatively cheap, whereas the R&D necessary to make a functional CPU at a very high clock would be expensive.
They (Intel, AMD) are getting lazy. They may claim to have hit the wall on issues (heat, power), but they are simply saving money on R&D, or at least letting us foot any bills that are arising as a result of the work by buying into their multi-core "solutions".
The makers continue to obscure the issue by flashing the big numbers. Of course a quad-core CPU array will push out huge amounts of data, but still not as much, cycle for cycle, as a single-core CPU. Think efficiency. However they get the CPUs to work together, there will always be a loss. I truly believe that we are seeing the limits of silicon (in it's current state), and until ta new substrate is found, they will continue to lump CPUs together and we will continue to "OOOoooo" at the numbers.
Honestly, I won't be looking into that anytime soon, and it's not about a lack of funds.
Get it together Intel and AMD.
What an empty rant. So many good discussion topics glossed over in a few pithy sentences. Ah well...you get my jist. We are being played. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delirium's Brother
Joined: 08 May 2006
Location: Out in that field with Rumi, waiting for you to join us!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| Funny that coding for dual-core is still in the infancy stage, yet quad-core is on the doorstep. |
Sad, would have been my choice of words, actually.
| Demophobe wrote: |
| Anyways, I can't help but feeling that quad-core is a load of bunk. It will mean something later, but unless they come up with a new idea about parallelism (how to combat potential problems, existing problems), they will continue to try to make us believe that a quad-core setup is better than a single CPU @ 8GHz. Why? Because parallelism is relatively cheap, whereas the R&D necessary to make a functional CPU at a very high clock would be expensive. |
Argeed, you could add I/O hardware/technology/bandwidth to the list of problems with multi-core designs. Nobody has even come close to keeping all those cores fed properly. Most desktop setups can't even stress out a dual-core setup. Maybe some juiced-up power-gamers can!?. A quad-core would have so much extra headroom that you would be wasting cycles for nothing. It's too bad that mobos, perhipherals, and a host of other technologies aren't keeping pace. And what I've said doesn't even begin to address your single CPU argument.
| Demophobe wrote: |
They (Intel, AMD) are getting lazy. They may claim to have hit the wall on issues (heat, power), but they are simply saving money on R&D, or at least letting us foot any bills that are arising as a result of the work by buying into their multi-core "solutions".
The makers continue to obscure the issue by flashing the big numbers. Of course a quad-core CPU array will push out huge amounts of data, but still not as much, cycle for cycle, as a single-core CPU. Think efficiency. However they get the CPUs to work together, there will always be a loss. I truly believe that we are seeing the limits of silicon (in it's current state), and until ta new substrate is found, they will continue to lump CPUs together and we will continue to "OOOoooo" at the numbers. |
Oh, I don't think that you have even begun to see the end of this. Check out this link. After reading that, I was going to start one of those, "Cubanlord, I dare you..." threads, but I thought it would be too silly and maybe a little bit cruel. Besides, it's the wrong type of chip design for his gaming needs and it's only a prototype anyway. But still, look at the future with awe and be amazed (both by the prodigality and the stupidity).
| Demophobe wrote: |
| Get it together Intel and AMD. |
Ya, I'm not going to put all the blame at their feet. Although they are pushing an underdeveloped technology--looking for whitespace in the market. Some of the blame belongs to the coders; and low-level programers and tools designers who can't deal or don't want to deal with the innovations in parallelism. And then there's the hardware manufactures who can't really keep up with any I/O solutions that would satisfactorily accompany this embarassment of richess in cycles. And a lot of the blame goes to the consummer who is `OOOoooing' about a type of solution that has no real application to any existing problem (outside of seriously hardcore number-crunching research). And I include myself in the later group. Nobody has imagined a real consumer use for this technology that is significantly different than what could be achieved by regular innovation in single die single cpu technology. So you're right. They have it the wall, but the wall I see them hitting is erected by a saturated market with no idea of where to go next. You're right it is bunk. Maybe if Cubanlord wants to render a 1 E-12 m scale map of the galaxy he might find some use for this stuff, but I doubt he is there yet. And then there is still the I/O problems.
| Demophobe wrote: |
| What an empty rant. So many good discussion topics glossed over in a few pithy sentences. Ah well...you get my jist. We are being played. |
Not really an empty rant. There are a lot of existing bottlenecks in this industry and one of them is being caused by a lack of imagination! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Delirium's Brother wrote: |
Sad, would have been my choice of words, actually.
|
I didn't buy into it. "Funny" is correct.
You are an Ars fan as well? Great site. Seems Ars has been dumbing things down a bit lately though. Ace's Hardware was another one I used to love reading. Sadly, they seem to have gone stale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delirium's Brother
Joined: 08 May 2006
Location: Out in that field with Rumi, waiting for you to join us!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ Demophobe:
Ya, I read Ars Technica, but I'm a little hit and miss with it. Sometimes my interest wanes. Then the next thing I know it's waxing again. Mostly my interest is in distributed computing; not gaming performance. But I'm just an unschooled barbarian rubbing sticks together, when it comes to real tech. I'm not a programmer or engineer or anything like that; just an enthusiast. And since I am basically self-taught, my knowledge base is dramatically uneven. I was a windows power-user/tweaker back in the day when MS was reliably crappy. Shell replacements (litestep anyone?!) and reg editing were my thing. But then I decided to travel into the undiscovered country. That was mostly because I wanted to build a beowulf cluster. Just a small 4 node one for fun, you see. Just to do it, you know, like scaling Everest. Well I still haven't managed to do either, and Everest is looking easier everyday. Someday I'll get it done, when there's the time and money; but right now my biggest problem is that the maps and explorers' journals to the undiscovered country are written in the confusing language of cmd line and bash shell scripts. Foreign variables and switches everywhere. *Argh* And anyone who says that vi is an intuitive editor is seriously wacked.
Wow, that was probably more than you wanted to know. Sorry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
| The makers continue to obscure the issue by flashing the big numbers. Of course a quad-core CPU array will push out huge amounts of data, but still not as much, cycle for cycle, as a single-core CPU. Think efficiency. However they get the CPUs to work together, there will always be a loss. |
So here's a question for you. Do my two Opteron 242s (I have a dual-socket board) operate better, worse, or on par with a duo-core? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
Yeah, it looks bad, mate, but it's actually meaningless at either of those framerates.
Funny that coding for dual-core is still in the infancy stage, yet quad-core is on the doorstep.
Anyways, I can't help but feeling that quad-core is a load of bunk. It will mean something later, but unless they come up with a new idea about parallelism (how to combat potential problems, existing problems), they will continue to try to make us believe that a quad-core setup is better than a single CPU @ 8GHz. Why? Because parallelism is relatively cheap, whereas the R&D necessary to make a functional CPU at a very high clock would be expensive.
They (Intel, AMD) are getting lazy. They may claim to have hit the wall on issues (heat, power), but they are simply saving money on R&D, or at least letting us foot any bills that are arising as a result of the work by buying into their multi-core "solutions".
The makers continue to obscure the issue by flashing the big numbers. Of course a quad-core CPU array will push out huge amounts of data, but still not as much, cycle for cycle, as a single-core CPU. Think efficiency. However they get the CPUs to work together, there will always be a loss. I truly believe that we are seeing the limits of silicon (in it's current state), and until ta new substrate is found, they will continue to lump CPUs together and we will continue to "OOOoooo" at the numbers.
Honestly, I won't be looking into that anytime soon, and it's not about a lack of funds.
Get it together Intel and AMD.
What an empty rant. So many good discussion topics glossed over in a few pithy sentences. Ah well...you get my jist. We are being played. |
After a lot of reading, I have concluded that I am off-base on many assumptions in this post.
Stay tuned... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
| The makers continue to obscure the issue by flashing the big numbers. Of course a quad-core CPU array will push out huge amounts of data, but still not as much, cycle for cycle, as a single-core CPU. Think efficiency. However they get the CPUs to work together, there will always be a loss. |
So here's a question for you. Do my two Opteron 242s (I have a dual-socket board) operate better, worse, or on par with a duo-core? |
Hmmm..excellent question; one which I don't have enough knowledge to make a sound judgement. Can someone lend a helping hand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
