- Joined
- Sep 29, 2004
Personally I believe that they're likely to go ahead with this. It makes sense.
Most current (and obviously old) software is single threaded. Considering you can significantly speed up single threaded software by doing this then why not? Likewise, there's plenty of types of software which will likely see little performance increase by going dual core, therefore the developers will likely not code them to be dual core.
Also (I don't know, but I'm guessing), wouldn't coding multithreaded apps be more complicated than coding it for one core? I'm guessing that game developers etc etc are likely to stick with single threaded coding as the most important thing to them tends to be to push a title out as soon as they can to make money.
Likewise, if Intel & AMD keep adding additional cores then it's going to become harder and harder to create efficient code for these CPU's. Can anyone imagine creating code for a 8 core CPU sometime in the future?
I believe reverse HyperThreading to be the answer to this issue, therefore I expect Intel to go this route also. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Intel doesn't already have this feature on the Conroe, just awaiting a driver update to enable it. I can't see any logical reason as to why they can't do this also.
Besides, any software that benefits greatly from multiple cores will likely be coded for multiple cores. You aren't likely to see the same performance with software coded for single cores vs the same piece of software coded for multitiple cores. The feature will help, but it's not the answer to all the multi core issues. As I said, software that benefits most from multi core will likely be coded for multi core.
Nothing new there. AMD has pretty much always been behind Intel on manufacturing process. I don't really expect this to ever change, unless Intel runs into problems with their process sometime in the future. AMD's process's and Intel's are suffiently different (SOI etc etc) that either one of them could have an issue down the track and fall behind because of it. I'd put my money on it being AMD that has the problem though. Intel can usually just throw money and resources at a problem till it gets resolved, AMD can't.
Just my two cents guys, and sorry if it was a bit long, I've a habit of doing that. I prefer doing one post to multiple posts.
Most current (and obviously old) software is single threaded. Considering you can significantly speed up single threaded software by doing this then why not? Likewise, there's plenty of types of software which will likely see little performance increase by going dual core, therefore the developers will likely not code them to be dual core.
Also (I don't know, but I'm guessing), wouldn't coding multithreaded apps be more complicated than coding it for one core? I'm guessing that game developers etc etc are likely to stick with single threaded coding as the most important thing to them tends to be to push a title out as soon as they can to make money.
Likewise, if Intel & AMD keep adding additional cores then it's going to become harder and harder to create efficient code for these CPU's. Can anyone imagine creating code for a 8 core CPU sometime in the future?
I believe reverse HyperThreading to be the answer to this issue, therefore I expect Intel to go this route also. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if Intel doesn't already have this feature on the Conroe, just awaiting a driver update to enable it. I can't see any logical reason as to why they can't do this also.
Besides, any software that benefits greatly from multiple cores will likely be coded for multiple cores. You aren't likely to see the same performance with software coded for single cores vs the same piece of software coded for multitiple cores. The feature will help, but it's not the answer to all the multi core issues. As I said, software that benefits most from multi core will likely be coded for multi core.
]-[itman said:Just some clarification for ya
Also, I wouldn't count AMD out just yet, quite a few tweaks are coming down the road, more than many are expecting and don't forget, we're still comparing 65nm intel chips to 90nm AMD chips and saying intel edges out AMD in power and has a decent bump in speed. Just imagine if AMD gets 65nm right...
Nothing new there. AMD has pretty much always been behind Intel on manufacturing process. I don't really expect this to ever change, unless Intel runs into problems with their process sometime in the future. AMD's process's and Intel's are suffiently different (SOI etc etc) that either one of them could have an issue down the track and fall behind because of it. I'd put my money on it being AMD that has the problem though. Intel can usually just throw money and resources at a problem till it gets resolved, AMD can't.
Just my two cents guys, and sorry if it was a bit long, I've a habit of doing that. I prefer doing one post to multiple posts.
Last edited: