Are Three Cores Better Than Two?

Vikingod · Nov 28, 2005, 02:19 PM

For AMD and Intel, it is just a matter of time before single-core processors become a thing of the past. The future thus belongs to devices that might pack two or eventually more than a dozen physical processing units onto a single physical die. However, it is a common assumption that processor cores have to come in even numbers, which is, in fact, not the case.

When we compared a dual-core and a dual-processor system, we first mentioned the possibility that the two might work. IBM's processor for the Xbox 360 is a triple core, which is a pretty good indicator that this configuration is viable. Although the power requirements are clearly different, there is, after all, no difference between single- and dual-core processors.
__________
Read More / Source: Tom's Hardware Guide

Matth · Nov 28, 2005, 04:05 PM

Maybe not a thing of the past for quite some time, as the pace of dual core programming is still slow, so other than deliberate multiple processing, or implicit foreground / background synergy, only a few exotic and expensive programs (or the freeware 7-Zip) make any worthwhile use of multiple cores.

There will always have to be room as well, for a "sempron" type approach, where budget single core processors will be 50% good dual cores.

Dual core, at the moment, is more an admission that single core is close to the viable clock speed limit, so the only way up is dual, or better instruction efficiency.

Maybe a breakthrough will be made, and the seesaw will tip back the other way.

Does anyone remember RISC, the last great hope? - simple instruction set, executed at 1 cycle per instruction?

Does RISC survive anywhere other than in low power or embedded applications?
I guess CISC got faster than the RISC camp thought it would.

Now multicore seems to be a technology that has a few applications that were already using dual CPU for as long as it had been available, but mainstream software does not benefit, yet!

Judas · Nov 29, 2005, 04:07 AM

i understood that amd was just going to try and make better use of there current waffer and spit out the quad core and skipping triple.

But, even for the basic user, they will indeed see a difference between a single/dual. You don't need a multithreaded app to take advantage of your dual core. The moment you load up more then 1 program, your making use of it.

SFOSOK · Nov 29, 2005, 04:45 AM

I want a 4400, but I can wait : (

Nov 28, 2005, 02:19 PM	#1
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,197 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	Are Three Cores Better Than Two? For AMD and Intel, it is just a matter of time before single-core processors become a thing of the past. The future thus belongs to devices that might pack two or eventually more than a dozen physical processing units onto a single physical die. However, it is a common assumption that processor cores have to come in even numbers, which is, in fact, not the case. When we compared a dual-core and a dual-processor system, we first mentioned the possibility that the two might work. IBM's processor for the Xbox 360 is a triple core, which is a pretty good indicator that this configuration is viable. Although the power requirements are clearly different, there is, after all, no difference between single- and dual-core processors. __________ Read More / Source: Tom's Hardware Guide

Nov 29, 2005, 04:45 AM	#4
SFOSOK 939 Goin Strong Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ontario Posts: 7,033 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	I want a 4400, but I can wait : ( __________________ Warning - Explicit Content Preceeding METAL!!

Nov 28, 2005, 04:05 PM	#2
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	Maybe not a thing of the past for quite some time, as the pace of dual core programming is still slow, so other than deliberate multiple processing, or implicit foreground / background synergy, only a few exotic and expensive programs (or the freeware 7-Zip) make any worthwhile use of multiple cores. There will always have to be room as well, for a "sempron" type approach, where budget single core processors will be 50% good dual cores. Dual core, at the moment, is more an admission that single core is close to the viable clock speed limit, so the only way up is dual, or better instruction efficiency. Maybe a breakthrough will be made, and the seesaw will tip back the other way. Does anyone remember RISC, the last great hope? - simple instruction set, executed at 1 cycle per instruction? Does RISC survive anywhere other than in low power or embedded applications? I guess CISC got faster than the RISC camp thought it would. Now multicore seems to be a technology that has a few applications that were already using dual CPU for as long as it had been available, but mainstream software does not benefit, yet!