CPU Types 3

[626F62]

Hi there... I work in hardware but have become a little out of touch with the stuff as my Job has mainly gone OS side... trying to keep up im reading about all the new processors and am lost...

can anyone explain each of these / the differances...

Dual Core
Core 2 Duo
Core 2 Quad

details would be handy including things like how many can be in a machine together, the number of cores etc...

thanks

 

[RunningCord]

There is something to be gained from the debate here. But I think the point "the best" needs some clarification. The point that the Core I7 is the best is true. Firstly understand what the purpose of a processor is... it is to execute instructions. That is it. The one that executes the same program and arrives at the result in the least amount of time... is the best. That is what makes one processor better that the rest. What is best for an individual is something entirely different. That subscribes to personal requirements. Two processors that execute the same program and arrive at the same result in the same amount of time, with one using less power, then the one using the least power is the best. Speed always has the highest weighting - once again not taking personal requirements into consideration, but what a processor is designed to do. The time a processor takes is not necessarily dependent on clock speed. The instruction set and the efficiency it executes its instruction set plays a major role. However the purpose is to execute instructions, the fastest way it knows how.

 

[kmcferrin]

Speed always has the highest weighting - once again not taking personal requirements into consideration, but what a processor is designed to do.

I disagree, mainly because so many other factors come into play that are specific to every single application. You made the point of mentioning power efficiency. If you're building a laptop, netbook, or embedded system, is "the best" CPU still the Core i7 965EE? I'm guessing that you will say "no". And that is because when building portable or low power systems, power consumption and/or battery life becomes much more important than how fast a CPU can process instructions. There's a certain point where the CPU speed is considered "good enough" and other attributes become more important.

To look at it another way, what sort of instructions are we talking about? Integer calculations? Floating point? Matrix math/SIMD? Vector processing? More to the point, doesn't the architecture play a role? A CPU that is faster in integer operations but slower in FP operations may be "the best" for general office use, but is relatively useless for scientific calculations. Maybe your particular application is a 4-way or 8-way database server that needs a great deal of memory bandwidth. In that case Core i7 isn't the best because it is not available in a 4-way or greater design.

I still maintain that there's a lot more than benchmarks behind what is "the best". Not all workloads are the same, or even comparable, and different CPUs have different strengths and weaknesses depending on their intended application. One size doesn't fit all. If it did, everybody would all be selling the same thing.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[RunningCord]

The point you are making in the context of you argument is correct, but the context of this discussion is "best processor" and you are clouding "best for purpose" with "best processor" which is two different things. You need to divorce those two concepts.
Speed is the highest weighting because ideally the user is never waiting for the processor to complete the task. You can clock your processor at 1Hz. You will have phenomenal power consumption, but no one is prepared to wait that long. So you speed up the processor and sacrifice power consumption until you are satisfied with the compromise. But it is still a compromise because ideally you don't want to wait. You have something that is best suited for your application, but that is not the point of this discussion.

Take your question about application - Floating point, Vector processing, etc. Take my post - the one that completes the application in the least amount of time is "the best". Extending on that; you take the sum of all the applications, time the execution of the application, the one that has completed all the applications in the least amount of time is the best. And that would be the I7.
If you want to put a processor into a laptop, then you sacrifice speed for power consumption. But there is a sacrifice in order to satisfy your application. You no longer (maybe) have the best processor overall, but you have the best for your application.
This processor was designed for the personal computer. There are more PC's out there than anything else. Very, very few people will run a single application on their machine. So if you took every application that a PC needs to run, threw that in a pot, the processor that would float to the top in most applications and most certainly overall will be the I7 - making it the best processor.
Remember this processor is not designed for large server applications either. You cannot run this processor in multi-processor applications because it only has one Quick Path interface. But once again, how many of us (in comparison to the number is PC's out there) even own multi-processor motherboards? This is a specific application again.

 

[kmcferrin]

The point you are making in the context of you argument is correct, but the context of this discussion is "best processor" and you are clouding "best for purpose" with "best processor" which is two different things. You need to divorce those two concepts.

You're still wrong. A processor is a device with multiple attributes. You can't say that "this device is the best" based on a single attribute without understanding how those attributes are related and affect the rating. Your definition of "best processor" isn't actually "best processor". It is "best processor at processing instructions as fast as possible", it is based on that one single attribute that you have arbitrarily decided to be the most important. You choose to ignore all other attributes but processing speed in your determination of the "best processor". I'm saying that because a CPU is more than just "processing speed," those other characteristics that you ignore can come into play.

Not everybody values processing speed above all else. A CPU isn't always designed to be the fastest processor around. The engineers at Intel and AMD design within a certain set of characteristics that include power draw, heat dissipation, and die size (which effects overall cost). Either company could EASILY design much, much faster CPUs and be selling them today. But they would be far more expensive than most people are willing to pay. And that's just AMD and Intel. IBM still builds their Power6/7 lines of CPUs, Sun has Sparc64 VI/VII, etc. Both of them are designed for their specific application, and either of those could certainly be faster than Nehalem/Core i7.

Remember this processor is not designed for large server applications either. You cannot run this processor in multi-processor applications because it only has one Quick Path interface. But once again, how many of us (in comparison to the number is PC's out there) even own multi-processor motherboards? This is a specific application again.

The Core i7 may not be, but the Nehalem Xeons are. I have a couple of beta blade servers in my lab that have dual Nehalem CPUs on them. But there are currently no designs for 4-way or 8-way Nehalem systems.

At any rate, your comment just proves my point. Your claim is that Core i7 is the "best CPU" hands down. I say that's only the case if price isn't a concern, power draw isn't a concern, heat dissipation isn't a concern, and multi-CPU capability isn't a concern. When you say that "Core i7 is the best CPU", you actually mean that "Core i7 is the best uniprocessor desktop CPU when your only concern is raw performance." That's a big difference.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[626F62]

STOP IT ALL OF YOU

the topic has nothing to do with best CPU!!!

the topic was about the differances in CPU's

i have got my answer and more...

i just wanted to understand the multicore and multichip aspect of CPU's

thanks for everyones help

Bobro

 

[kmcferrin]

We stopped it over a week ago. Where have you been?

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[Grenage]

Bah, debates like the above lead to some of the best threads. This one is full of valid points and useful information.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[cdogg]

Bobro,
That's not how this site operates. Many threads you'll run into around here branch off into conversations with deeper meaning. Often they reflect current issues in the IT world which many appreciate and find productive.

It is still important to answer the OP's question (and I'm glad that was accomplished here), but we should not attempt to stifle the topic of discussion even when it strays from the central theme.

Thanks!

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[626F62]

no that will only make finding info on Forums hard work... im all for the banter but if its an info forum can be annoying, and arguing the toss agreed is good but this seemed a rabble of definition between opinions not facts...

and anyway i agree with kmcferrin

 

[cdogg]

Opinions aren't necessarily a bad thing. The last thing this forum wants to become is strictly informative in textbook fashion. That's what google is for.

Although rough around the edges at times, there was good material here nonetheless. All I'm saying is that if at least one person values the discussion, everyone else should respect that and avoid the thread if it bothers them. After all, this is a public thread and not a private one. If it bothers you to the point where you feel compelled to do something about it, then use the "red flag" feature to bring it to the attention of site management. Dave Murphy will review your complaint.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[626F62]

im not that arsed i just kept getting informed that people had posted and with joyess glee i would login to see the usefull info i was searching for and it would just be a comeback to the last post.

 

[BadBigBen]

626f62, there is an easy fix for that, just unmark the thread, that way you will not be bothered with an eMail... ;-)


Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.

 

[cigol01]

I can't wait to see the release of quad core processors into the retail sector.. Im just surprised that this hasn't happened by now when we are soon going to surpass that point also.

PC REPAIRS FALKIRK

 

[BadBigBen]

I can't wait to see the release of quad core processors into the retail sector..

Ah, Mr. Rip van Winkle, where have you been?

Here are just two examples from Amazon UK, and I am quite sure if you search further, you will find these and others quite readily available worldwide:

Intel Q6600 Core2 Quad 2.4GHz Processr - Retail 1066MHz FSB, 8MB Cache, Quad Core

AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition Quad-Core Processor - 2.60 GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, Socket AM2+, 140W, 65 nm, 3 Year Warranty, Retail Boxed

PS: in case you are not familiar with the Rip van Winkle story, then click the here...

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.

 

[kmcferrin]

Yup. Quads have been out for at least a couple of years now.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

 

[kmcferrin]

Not to uh...keep the argument going or anything, but this discussion (along with some recently available hot deals on CPUs) sparked my curiosity, and I've been looking at upgrading my system. I had basically settled on two options:

1. Buy an AM3 Phenom II CPU, and expensive AM3 mainboard, and DDR3 memory.

2. Buy and AM2+ Phenom II and a reasonably priced AM2+ board, and probably get some inexpensive but faster DDR2 1066 RAM.

I didn't like option 1 because it was expensive, and option 2 seemed a bit stupid because I would be buying technology that is about to be made obsolete. But while I was looking for updated mainboard drivers for my system board (an original AM2, not AM2+ board, the Gigabyte GA-MA69G-S3H) I stumbled across the CPU support page:

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherboard/CPUSupport_Model.aspx?ProductID=2554#anchor_os

It turns out that my mainboard will actually support AM3 Phenom II CPUs even though it is only an AM2 board. Thanks to the dual memory controllers in the AM3 CPUs (DDR2 and DDR3) I should be able to get it work with only a BIOS flash. Granted, the CPU will still be limited to HT 1.0 speeds, but going from an X2 5600+ to a Phenom II X4 925 will give a nice boost with the added cache, cores, and IPC improvements.

That's one more benefit the AM2 platform has. I can get the AM3 CPU for a boost today, and then 6-12 months from now when AM3 boards and DDR3 memory are plentiful and cheap I can swap those parts out for yet another speed boost. I just cut another $200 off of my Phenom II upgrade.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCTS:Hyper-V
MCTS:System Center Virtual Machine Manager
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator