Quad cores to arrive in 1Q 2007, with Intel’s Kentsfield and AMD’s K8L

Vikingod · Mar 27, 2006, 07:59 AM

Intel has scheduled to launch its quad-core processor, codenamed “Kentsfield,” in the first quarter of 2007, according to sources at Taiwan motherboard makers. At about the same time, rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will debut its K8L series, a quad-core upgrade of its K8 architecture, said the sources.
_____________
Read More / Source: DigiTimes

Matth · Mar 27, 2006, 11:27 AM

The question is, how long before quad core is actually useful in more than a few situations, while dual core has not yet been assimilated by more than a few.

Sure, multicore can be used for multitasking, by those who want to run a demanding task such as video encoding alongside other things.

The real prospects for multicore on the desktop, I suppose are:
1. Existing long tasks accelerated by a "divide and conquer" approach, segmenting them automatically, or manually running multiple instances.

2. Tasks which demand immediate speed (such as games) multithreaded - eg. 1 thread for graphics rendering, another for AI, another dealing with input, and perhaps others predictively preparing an area that you could move into.

If there is any prospect of a step to even more processors, old techniques will no longer be effective, and instead of trying to segment existing tasks, new software design would need to be made in a manner which emphasizes segmentation and concurrency.

Judas · Mar 27, 2006, 11:33 AM

Dual core is instantly used.. reguardless of an aplication taking full advantage of it or not...

While the game/program may only be using one core.. it leaves windows to manage all the other services and tasks over to the other core giving your game or program FULL solo core use.

And we are going to see some pretty extensive explotions of use for dual/quad cores.... as the magnatude of processing speed and power is double/quadrupled. As programmers realize that they can extend different things onto each core, they can further push the envelope.

pr0digal jenius · Mar 27, 2006, 11:55 AM

Adobe products as of Photoshop CS and Adobe Premiere Pro are multithreaded as well, if I'm not mistaken

Judas · Mar 27, 2006, 03:08 PM

yes.. but adobe photoshop although multithreaded.. doesn't use AMD x2's correctly...... it only load balances up to 50% total cpu usage.. (25 on one core.. and 25 on the other)...

SFOSOK · Mar 27, 2006, 07:51 PM

It will be usefull, not to the common people, but think about engineering and such. Eventually there will be a point where an entire company can work off one processor. That would be the most cost, power, heat, whatever effiecent whenever we have the m eans for it.

Remember, the sky is the limit.

pr0digal jenius · Mar 27, 2006, 11:14 PM

more importantly, multi-chip servers can be on one chip to reduce heat, power consumption, and the cost of mainboards

Matth · Mar 28, 2006, 10:59 AM

I forgot the "hidden background" issue, though there should not be a huge amount of it.

The other thing to note, is that the Multiple CPU performance Windows patch is STILL not on general realease.

If you use power management (including CPU speed reduction) and multiple CPU, a single thread load spread across the available CPUs is not sufficient to raise the performance state.

The effect is even seen under hyperthreading on the 600-series with EIST (model 640 tested)

My tests, a bit rambling, but as observed... Microsoft should make this patch an optional Windowsupdate as soon as possible, as dual core is becoming more common, and performance of it is impaired if power management is used.

Quote:

7-Zip tests, Dictionary size 16Mb
1. Powersave ON, single thread 4.15B
Compression 591 k/s 2242 MIPS
Decompression 13353 k/s 1444 MIPS
Overall 1843 MIPS
Discovered 4.16B update "speed optimized" - repeating first test
1a. Minimal powersave, single thread (Mostly 2.8GHz/50%, low voltage)
Comp: 600 k/s 2276 MIPS
Decomp: 12216 k/s 1321 MIPS
Overall: 1798 MIPS
2. Minimal powersave, Multithread (90%+/3.2GHz compress, 50%/2.8GHz decompress)
Comp: 830 k/s 3147 MIPS
Decomp: 12649 k/s 1369 MIPS
Overall: 2258 MIPS
3. Always On, single thread
Comp: 640 k/s 2425 MIPS
Decomp: 14001 k/s 1515 MIPS
Overall: 1970 MIPS
4. Always On, Multithread
Comp: 854 k/s 3238 MIPS
Decomp: 13992 k/s 1513 MIPS
Overall: 2376 MIPS

Observations using "Throttlewatch"...
At "Minimum power saving", the CPU voltage is dropped and the idle speed is 2.8GHz.
A single thread of full load, split as 50% on each HT unit, tends NOT to rasise the speed and voltage to full.
At "Always on", the CPU voltage is at normal, but the idling speed is still reported as 2.8GHz by throttlewatch.
It rises to full speed instantly on any load, and even System Properties reports it as 3.2GHz.
Further analysis:
Base speed difference from 2.8GHz to 3.2GHz is 14.2%
Compression, single thread: 6.5% gain - it was dithering between speeds.
Decompression, always single thread: 14% - yes, the entire clock speed difference
Compression, MULTITHREAD: 2.8%
Advantage of multithread compression: 33%

** FINAL CONCLUSIONS **
1. Multithreading is good, without it, you're probably better off with an AMD than a hyperthreading Intel.
2. Even at "Always on", there is a very light speedstep action, but with full operating voltage, the increase to full speed is instant on ANY demand.
3. At "Minimal saving", the CPU speed reduction is over-aggressive - it appears that hyperthreading is not properly taken account of, so a single threaded task at full load may not manage to bring the CPU out of low power state - is this an Intel oversight, a Windows one, or an MSI BIOS one ?
I'd decided to leave mine in the minimal powersave - but given the hopeless implementation of the speed control, I think I'll leave it on full.
If you want the Monitor off after 15 minutes, the other thing "Minimal saving" does, adding that to "Always on" does not trigger the low power CPU behaviour.

I switched to using RMCLOCK to control CPU speed/voltage.

Mar 27, 2006, 07:59 AM	#1
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,149 Rep Power: 85 System Specs	Quad cores to arrive in 1Q 2007, with Intel’s Kentsfield and AMD’s K8L Intel has scheduled to launch its quad-core processor, codenamed “Kentsfield,” in the first quarter of 2007, according to sources at Taiwan motherboard makers. At about the same time, rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will debut its K8L series, a quad-core upgrade of its K8 architecture, said the sources. _____________ Read More / Source: DigiTimes __________________ *How You Can Help DriverHeaven By Using Digg*

Mar 27, 2006, 11:27 AM	#2
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,203 Rep Power: 58 System Specs	The question is, how long before quad core is actually useful in more than a few situations, while dual core has not yet been assimilated by more than a few. Sure, multicore can be used for multitasking, by those who want to run a demanding task such as video encoding alongside other things. The real prospects for multicore on the desktop, I suppose are: 1. Existing long tasks accelerated by a "divide and conquer" approach, segmenting them automatically, or manually running multiple instances. 2. Tasks which demand immediate speed (such as games) multithreaded - eg. 1 thread for graphics rendering, another for AI, another dealing with input, and perhaps others predictively preparing an area that you could move into. If there is any prospect of a step to even more processors, old techniques will no longer be effective, and instead of trying to segment existing tasks, new software design would need to be made in a manner which emphasizes segmentation and concurrency. __________________ Mary had a little lamb, Her father shot it dead Now Mary takes her lamb to school, Between two crusts of bread

Mar 27, 2006, 07:51 PM	#6
SFOSOK -Thread Ender- Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Riverside, CA (right next to the f*ckin train) Posts: 6,873 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	It will be usefull, not to the common people, but think about engineering and such. Eventually there will be a point where an entire company can work off one processor. That would be the most cost, power, heat, whatever effiecent whenever we have the m eans for it. Remember, the sky is the limit. __________________ Warning - Explicit Content Preceeding METAL!!

Mar 27, 2006, 11:55 AM	#4
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,672 Rep Power: 0	Adobe products as of Photoshop CS and Adobe Premiere Pro are multithreaded as well, if I'm not mistaken

Mar 27, 2006, 11:14 PM	#7
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,672 Rep Power: 0	more importantly, multi-chip servers can be on one chip to reduce heat, power consumption, and the cost of mainboards