1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Nehalem adds 7 more SSE4 instructions, SMP working

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Guest-16, 19 Sep 2007.

  1. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

  2. DarkLord7854

    DarkLord7854 New Member

    Joined:
    22 Jun 2005
    Posts:
    4,643
    Likes Received:
    121
    I want one :(
     
  3. ComputerKing

    ComputerKing <img src="http://forums.bit-tech.net/images/smilie

    Joined:
    8 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    4,200
    Likes Received:
    36
    16 CORES! What the! How come it invented! I Don't know why some one need 16 Cores, maybe to lunch some rockets ! I like it.
     
  4. ssj12

    ssj12 Member

    Joined:
    12 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    686
    Likes Received:
    1
    its 8 cores and 16 threads not 16 cores, that would be 32 threads.
     
  5. ComputerKing

    ComputerKing <img src="http://forums.bit-tech.net/images/smilie

    Joined:
    8 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    4,200
    Likes Received:
    36
    :duh: Threads :duh:
     
  6. Brooxy

    Brooxy Like a boss (but not a boss)

    Joined:
    20 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    108
    Do we even have an OS that can utilise all 16 threads? If not, it sounds like intel are just trying to show off their e-peen...
     
  7. completemadness

    completemadness New Member

    Joined:
    11 May 2007
    Posts:
    887
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as i know, OS's don't have problems handing masses of CPU's and lots of threads

    the problem is getting programs that can utilise it
     
  8. DarkLord7854

    DarkLord7854 New Member

    Joined:
    22 Jun 2005
    Posts:
    4,643
    Likes Received:
    121
    You can manually assign programs to different cores/threads
     
  9. completemadness

    completemadness New Member

    Joined:
    11 May 2007
    Posts:
    887
    Likes Received:
    0
    windows will automatically spread the load over cores so there's not a lot of point, all my background processes probably use 1% of a core, Games use 100% of a core

    So in total i can use 101% of a 200% processor, or 101% of a 400% processor, or 101% of a 800% processor
    Even sup comm will run fine on dual core, because that's all it can really utilise

    So i don't see the point in >2 cores ATM, and quad core at the max, until there are a lot of good multi cored programs, adding all these extra cores is just a waste of money
    Its a shame AMD never did get that fusion thing going, it would be awesome for the next ... well i don't know how long tbh, but certainly many years to come
     
  10. Joeymac

    Joeymac New Member

    Joined:
    3 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    243
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many game engines that are being updated to utilise multicore systems. Next year ''threading your software'' will be the thing to be doing and by the time nehalem comes out then there will be plenty of stuff that makes use of all those cores/threads. Something as powerful as that 16 thread system is probably going to be a video editing or rendering application anyway, most of those will already ramp up to fill those threads.
    I don't see why people moan about a game not maxing out all their cores. I doubt there is a game out at the moment that maxes out a single core on even the cheapest C2D system whilst you play the game at proper resolutions above 1024x768. The game that does go over to another core isn't going to be doing it for the sake of it... the other cores will be for parallel tasks like physics and audio. Otherwise, what's the point.
     
  11. TheEclypse

    TheEclypse New Member

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    407
    Likes Received:
    1
    Now they have the cores to play with, they will start playing with them. Bring back functional programming :thumb:
     
  12. completemadness

    completemadness New Member

    Joined:
    11 May 2007
    Posts:
    887
    Likes Received:
    0
    we have had consumer multi-core for at least a year or 2, Servers have had SMP for as long as i can remember
    And then there was hyper threading as well

    Its taken a long time for any kind of multi-threading to come out of the pipework, and so far none of it exactly blows your socks off
     
  13. TheEclypse

    TheEclypse New Member

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    407
    Likes Received:
    1
    I havent graduated from uni yet :p
     
  14. Max Spain

    Max Spain New Member

    Joined:
    18 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    That SSE4 looks nifty. Also, with Quick Path, they should catch up with AMD on multi-proc performance. AMD really needs to start innovating like Intel is right now.
     
  15. wuyanxu

    wuyanxu still wants Homeworld 3

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2007
    Posts:
    10,588
    Likes Received:
    231
    quick question: would i need SSE4 if i were just to play games?

    anyone think 4 cures are enough for any games for at least 3 to 4 years?
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page