# AMD Demos 48-core ''Magny-Cours'' System, Details Architecture



## btarunr (Aug 26, 2009)

Earlier slated coarsely for 2010, AMD fine-tuned the expected release time-frame of its 12-core "Magny-Cours" Opteron processors to be within Q1 2010. The company seems to be ready with the processors, and has demonstrated a 4 socket, 48 core machine based on these processors. Magny Cours holds symbolism in being one of the last processor designs by AMD before it moves over to "Bulldozer", the next processor design by AMD built from ground-up. Its release will provide competition to Intel's multi-core processors available at that point. 

AMD's Pat Conway at the IEEE Hot Chips 21 conference presented the Magny-Cours design that include several key design changes that boost parallelism and efficiency in a high-density computing environment. Key features include: Move to socket G34 (from socket-F), 12-cores, use of a multi-chip module (MCM) package to house two 6-core dies (nodes), quad-channel DDR3 memory interface, and HyperTransport 3 6.4 GT/s with redesigned multi-node topologies. Let's put some of these under the watch-glass.






*Socket and Package*
Loading 12 cores onto a single package and maintaining sufficient system and memory bandwidth would have been a challenge. With the Istanbul six-core monolothic die already measuring 346 mm² with a transistor-load of 904 million, making something monolithic twice the size is inconceivable, at least on the existing 45 nm SOI process. The company finally broke its contemptuous stance on multi-chip modules which it ridiculed back in the days of the Pentium D, and designed one of its own. Since each die is a little more than a CPU (in having a dual-channel memory controller, AMD chooses to call it a "node", a cluster of six processing cores that connects to its neighbour on the same package using one of its four 16-bit HyperTransport links. The rest are available to connect to neighbouring sockets and the system in 2P and 4P multi-socket topologies.

The socket itself gets a revamp from the existing 1,207-pin Socket-F, to the 1,974-pin Socket G34. The high pin-count ensures connections to HyperTransport links, four DDR3 memory connections, and other low-level IO. 



 



*Multi-Socket Topologies*
A Magny-Cours Opteron processor can work in 2P and 4P systems for up to 48 physical processing cores. The multi-socket technologies AMD devised ensures high inter-core and inter-node bandwidth without depending on the system chipset IO for the task. In the 2P topology, one node from each socket uses one of its HyperTransport 16-bit links to connect to the system, the other to the neighbouring node on the package, and the remaining links to connect to the nodes of the neighbouring socket. It is indicated that AMD will make use of 6.4 GT/s links (probably generation 3.1). In 4P systems, it uses 8-bit links instead, to connect to three other sockets, but ensures each node is connected to the other directly, on indirectly over the MCM. With a total of 16 DDR3 DCTs in a 4P system, a staggering 170.4 GB/s of cumulative memory bandwidth is achieved. 





Finally, AMD projects a up to 100% scaling with Magny-Cours compared to Istanbul. Its "future-silicon" projected for 2011 is projected to almost double that. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 26, 2009)

Christ on a bike 48core??? F@H Here i come!!


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 26, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Christ on a bike 48core??? F@H Here i come!!



Bah -- it's an impressive setup, but you could probably still do more folding with a few GTX 295's, right?


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Aug 26, 2009)

Its still impressive nonetheless.  A native 12 core Proc OHHEMMGEE!!!


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Aug 26, 2009)

Hooray for 12 core Opty's! 
I may have to get a few


----------



## Mussels (Aug 26, 2009)

Jeebers help us all...


----------



## human_error (Aug 26, 2009)

AlienIsGOD said:


> Its still impressive nonetheless.  A native 12 core Proc OHHEMMGEE!!!



Actually it is 2 native 6 cores in one package like the Core 2 Quad processors (which were 2 dual cores in one package). This means that the shared L3 is shared between two sets of six cores and not across all 12 cores and that each 6 cores only has dual channel memory as opposed to having quad channel across 12 cores - it just means if one core needs more bandwidth than dual channel can provide then it would bottleneck but in such a multithreaded environment anything running on that would have to be designed to run on multi-cpu setups (which would also limit max bandwidth available to one core at a time to be dual channel speeds) anyway.


----------



## wahdangun (Aug 26, 2009)

i think you have a typo, "multi-chip module (MXM)"

i think it should be *MCM *not MXM


MXM is for GPU on laptop


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Aug 26, 2009)

GIVE IT TO ME!^^

48 crunching tabs running 24/7 a 3ghz.... YEAH


----------



## tidas (Aug 26, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Christ on a bike 48core??? F@H Here i come!!



yes....but can it crysis?


----------



## Castiel (Aug 26, 2009)

I want one. Would go great with my network design.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 26, 2009)

tidas said:


> yes....but can it crysis?



in software mode, most likely.


----------



## Breathless (Aug 26, 2009)

what ever happened to "real men use real cores".  

This isn't 12 "real" cores....


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 26, 2009)

they are real, really glued together ....


----------



## Mussels (Aug 26, 2009)

Breathless said:


> what ever happened to "real men use real cores".
> 
> This isn't 12 "real" cores....



it is in fact 12 real cores.

the 'less than real' cores refers to hyperthreading, not the sticky tape approach.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 26, 2009)

Breathless said:


> what ever happened to "real men use real cores".
> 
> This isn't 12 "real" cores....



No, they are 12 "real" cores, but this isn't a "real" 12-core.  Make sense?


----------



## Kitkat (Aug 26, 2009)

Mussels said:


> it is in fact 12 real cores.
> 
> the 'less than real' cores refers to hyperthreading, not the sticky tape approach.



i spit my coffee lol


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Aug 26, 2009)

if this isnt a 12 core, core quad wont be a quad multipacking makes no difference


----------



## thezorro (Aug 26, 2009)

intel is losing the war, what happened to the tick tock? or is tic tac?
just my two cents


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 26, 2009)

Damn it someone beat me to the Crysis joke. Not only that they registered to do it 



thezorro said:


> intel is losing the war, what happened to the tick tock? or is tic tac?
> just my two cents



Dude your lost on this.


----------



## a111087 (Aug 26, 2009)

thezorro said:


> intel is losing the war, what happened to the tick tock? or is tic tac?
> just my two cents



I wouldn't be so quick about it.  from what i've seen, these 12-cores will not come to desktops, not anytime soon, at least.


----------



## El Fiendo (Aug 26, 2009)

thezorro said:


> intel is losing the war, what happened to the tick tock? or is tic tac?
> just my two cents




Intel's market share: 79.1% in the fourth quarter of 2008
AMD's market share: 12.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008


I wish I could lose at girls as well as Intel is said to be losing to AMD. I'd be rolling on a pile of women whilst giggling with glee every night.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 26, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Intel's market share: 79.1% in the fourth quarter of 2008
> AMD's market share: 12.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008
> 
> 
> I wish I could lose at girls as well as Intel is said to be losing to AMD. I'd be rolling on a pile of women whilst giggling with glee every night.



You still can with enough methamphetamines.


----------



## El Fiendo (Aug 26, 2009)

So copious amounts of meth is Intel's key to success as well then? Or is that strictly a me only scenario?


----------



## twilyth (Aug 26, 2009)

Yea AMD!  W00T!

But what I really want to say is directed at themailman.

Are you listening?

That avatar is genuinely disturbing.

I'll let you know in a couple days if that is compliment or not.

Carry on.


----------



## aj28 (Aug 26, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> No, they are 12 "real" cores, but this isn't a "real" 12-core.  Make sense?



No, because the comment referenced was originally made as an argument against the idea that hyper-threading meant your processor had some sort of "virtual core" count equal to double your actual cores. They used entirely different terminology in arguing against the use of MXM.



thezorro said:


> intel is losing the war, what happened to the tick tock? or is tic tac?
> just my two cents



I wouldn't say so, because these aren't designed to be desktop chips. Then again, if you ask me, i7 is a server chip too. It really has no place in the desktop market today because it provides such limited benefits to home users, at a huge increase in cost. AMD could release this thing on the desktop side if they wanted to, but the fact of the matter is it would be a bloated, power-sucking piece of junk which, while hella fast, gives no tangible advantage to the vast majority of users in that piece of the market... Just like i7.


----------



## suraswami (Aug 26, 2009)

How much power does this monster suck?  Will my neighbours loose power when this thing is turned on


----------



## btarunr (Aug 26, 2009)

suraswami said:


> How much power does this monster suck?



Running costs will be pocket-change for a datacenter.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 26, 2009)

Just based on cruncher interest, this chip will be responsible not only for the melting of the ice caps, the collapse of the N. Atlantic thermohaline circulation and the corruption of our youth, but it will transform our lovely blue planet into a searing hellscape that will make the sunny side of Mercury feel like a vacation.  It is the product of evil men with evil intentions and I want at least a dozen!


----------



## a111087 (Aug 26, 2009)

the slide says: "same power envelope"


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 26, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> Intel's market share: 79.1% in the fourth quarter of 2008
> AMD's market share: 12.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008
> 
> 
> I wish I could lose at girls as well as Intel is said to be losing to AMD. I'd be rolling on a pile of women whilst giggling with glee every night.



Well, let's compare girls to GPU's -- yeah, you'd have 79.1% of the girls compared to AMD's 12.8%, but you'd be getting all the fat, slow, ugly ones.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 26, 2009)

It's probably upwards of 230w (double Istanbul) per socket.

Intel going to MCM a Dunnington too?


----------



## YinYang.ERROR (Aug 26, 2009)

I'm taking it these are server processors, not home processors; Which will probably cost thousands of dollars.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 26, 2009)

Depends... I've had a couple 4P machines in my home before


----------



## El Fiendo (Aug 26, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Well, let's compare girls to GPU's -- yeah, you'd have 79.1% of the girls compared to AMD's 12.8%, but you'd be getting all the fat, slow, ugly ones.



To GPUs? Erm, alright? Yes Intel's on-board graphics suck but I fail to see how that relates to what I said. 

If you want to compare CPUs I still fail to see how Intel will be slower, fatter and uglier considering current Intel seems to be winning vs. current AMD. Fat bottomed girls make the rocking world go round, perhaps?


----------



## suraswami (Aug 26, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Running costs will be pocket-change for a datacenter.



True, but there is this new trend about virtualizing and consolidating, saving energy, saving the planet thing going on.  So if this monster is going to shut down say 24 dual-core servers then its a real change in the pocket.


----------



## Cuzza (Aug 26, 2009)

gotta heat your basement somehow


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Aug 26, 2009)

I loled at some people's routine anti-establishment comments.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Aug 26, 2009)

aj28 said:


> I wouldn't say so, because these aren't designed to be desktop chips. Then again, if you ask me, i7 is a server chip too. It really has no place in the desktop market today because* it provides such limited benefits to home users*, at a huge increase in cost. AMD could release this thing on the desktop side if they wanted to, but the fact of the matter is it would be a bloated, power-sucking piece of junk which, while hella fast, gives no tangible advantage to the vast majority of users in that piece of the market... Just like i7.



Hi buddy, you mind explaining the above in *bold and underlined text*

Not trying to argue, just curious as to what made you think that.  Thanks


----------



## btarunr (Aug 27, 2009)

This is about a big development in the field of enterprise computing. That said, eventually everyone will need a 48-core machine/something this powerful to accomplish relatively "basic computing". If I'm wrong, _640K [of memory] should've been enough for anyone™_.


----------



## Flyordie (Aug 27, 2009)

A Cheese Danish said:


> Hooray for 12 core Opty's!
> I may have to get a few



I have 2x Istanbuls clocking in at 3.0Ghz each.  12 Cores total... ;-p  Expect some good performing parts.
(loaded all 12 cores gives me 314W from the wall..... Everything else was idle... HDDs were sleeping... ect.. 2 highspeed 102CFM 120mm fans... )


----------



## MKmods (Aug 27, 2009)

Now if AMD would allow the 4 Nvidia Tesla cards to run on it we would finally have a comp that may max out Crysis...


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 27, 2009)

the least they could do is set it up on a 52 inch hdtv. not some crappy 22 inch monitor...


----------



## aj28 (Aug 27, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> Hi buddy, you mind explaining the above in *bold and underlined text*
> 
> Not trying to argue, just curious as to what made you think that.  Thanks



Fact of the matter is, unless you're dealing with video encoding and/or protein folding on a daily basis, the i7 is absolute overkill for desktop use. Given that both of these tasks are or soon will be more efficiently executed on modern GPU cores, I really don't see a place for i7 outside of server rooms.

It's a great chip, don't get me wrong. Intel has pretty much blown AMD away on the performance front, and I'm sure they're making a tidy profit doing it, but I just don't see it as having a practical use to the majority of the desktop market.

Bear in mind that this is all being said in response to the implied notion of Magny-Cours on desktop, not as any kind of forward attack on Intel and/or their products.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Aug 27, 2009)

aj28 said:


> Fact of the matter is, unless you're dealing with video encoding and/or protein folding on a daily basis, the i7 is absolute overkill for desktop use. Given that both of these tasks are or soon will be more efficiently executed on modern GPU cores, I really don't see a place for i7 outside of server rooms.
> 
> It's a great chip, don't get me wrong. Intel has pretty much blown AMD away on the performance front, and I'm sure they're making a tidy profit doing it, but I just don't see it as having a practical use to the majority of the desktop market.
> 
> Bear in mind that this is all being said in response to the implied notion of Magny-Cours on desktop, not as any kind of forward attack on Intel and/or their products.



Thanks for the explanation, I just wanted to know what was behind this thought.  You are correct, however even as a desktop, the performance it brings is nice man.  In my case, I crunch two rigs 24/7.  My i7 rig is my main everyday PC, but never stops crunching, the HT in this case helps tremendously.  But then again that helps prove your point, which means I agree with you


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> This is about a big development in the field of enterprise computing. That said, eventually everyone will need a 48-core machine/something this powerful to accomplish relatively "basic computing". If I'm wrong, _640K [of memory] should've been enough for anyone™_.


I don't know...

Most applications most people use do not make effective use of parallel processing.  If a dual-core is more than enough for you, you might as well throw the difference away on a 48-core machine.  Parallel processing really doesn't help anyone but the server/super computing market.

I think it is only a matter of time before people catch on that more cores aren't necessarily better and focus will return to making each individual core faster.  Even your most basic of word processors could benefit from a huge IPS, single core processor than it could from a multi-core processor.

The server market and the consumer market did clash for a while but I think it is only a matter of time before the go in different directions again.




Flyordie said:


> I have 2x Istanbuls clocking in at 3.0Ghz each.  12 Cores total... ;-p  Expect some good performing parts.
> (loaded all 12 cores gives me 314W from the wall..... Everything else was idle... HDDs were sleeping... ect.. 2 highspeed 102CFM 120mm fans... )


What's the efficiency of the PSU and how much RAM is in it?  I think my 230w estimate is pretty close.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't know...
> 
> Most applications most people use do not make effective use of parallel processing.  If a dual-core is more than enough for you, you might as well throw the difference away on a 48-core machine.  Parallel processing really doesn't help anyone but the server/super computing market.
> 
> ...



intel agrees with you. they're capping at four cores for their mainstream stuff (775/i5).

There are things that could use more than four cores for a regular user - but they're not something you do very often (encode videos, gaming, etc) - its not a common thing, and it doesnt happen often so most people dont need it.

There are two other points to go along with this: having two cores loaded on a tri or quad core with the last left to make the OS responsive for you to chat, use web browsing etc - thats useful to many people. an extra core can do wonders there.

I forgot the last one. cant have been that good.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 27, 2009)

i doubt we will ever need a 48 core processor like this one for desktop use. more than likely when we will have successfully used biotechnology to enhance CPUs.


----------



## twilyth (Aug 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't know...
> 
> Most applications most people use do not make effective use of parallel processing.  If a dual-core is more than enough for you, you might as well throw the difference away on a 48-core machine.  Parallel processing really doesn't help anyone but the server/super computing market.
> 
> ...


I do a lot of encoding, archiving and some editting.  Even 4 cores feels a little tight, but I run into memory issues more often since most of my rigs are at a mere 4GB.  This should improve as I get all the rigs on x64 and go to 8Gb as my new standard.

Also, I have at least a dozen windows open most of the time - 4-5 for firefox, file manager, archiving, parity checking, Thunderbird, word, Acrobat (usually at least 1-2), explorer (for the PITA sites), photo viewer, editor, manager, news reader, etc.  Plus things like image burn, Virtual box, etc that I use occasionally.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 27, 2009)

twilyth said:


> I do a lot of encoding, archiving and some editting.  Even 4 cores feels a little tight, but I run into memory issues more often since most of my rigs are at a mere 4GB.  This should improve as I get all the rigs on x64 and go to 8Gb as my new standard.
> 
> Also, I have at least a dozen windows open most of the time - 4-5 for firefox, file manager, archiving, parity checking, Thunderbird, word, Acrobat (usually at least 1-2), explorer (for the PITA sites), photo viewer, editor, manager, news reader, etc.  Plus things like image burn, Virtual box, etc that I use occasionally.



aha!
you made me remember my point two!


you're often limited by your HDD speed as well, so a 48 core machine to be rendering one video task, would need a massive SSD RAID array to keep up anyway!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2009)

twilyth said:


> I do a lot of encoding, archiving and some editting.  Even 4 cores feels a little tight, but I run into memory issues more often since most of my rigs are at a mere 4GB.  This should improve as I get all the rigs on x64 and go to 8Gb as my new standard.
> 
> Also, I have at least a dozen windows open most of the time - 4-5 for firefox, file manager, archiving, parity checking, Thunderbird, word, Acrobat (usually at least 1-2), explorer (for the PITA sites), photo viewer, editor, manager, news reader, etc.  Plus things like image burn, Virtual box, etc that I use occasionally.


That list is more taxing on your RAM than it is on your CPU.  More memory would definitely help.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't know...
> 
> Most applications most people use do not make effective use of parallel processing.  If a dual-core is more than enough for you, you might as well throw the difference away on a 48-core machine.  Parallel processing really doesn't help anyone but the server/super computing market.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you do remember that Bill Gates was wrong about the whole 640k thing, right? 

Massive multi-core processing is the way of the future, because there's a limit to how fast you can get a single core to go.  I'm not being mean, but if you're not believing this by now, you're deluding yourself.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 27, 2009)

when they get a 16 core CPU <100W, it'll start appearing in desktops.

When they get it under 50W, it'll start appearing in dells.

its a when, not an if


----------



## Disparia (Aug 27, 2009)

We're so close to `full virtualization` that a machine like this isn't really......   ok, it would still be overkill. But more realistically, a nice 2P box, say a couple Xeons (8C/16T), 24GB, 4 video cards, dedicated RAID controller and a slew of drives would make for one nice multi-user box.

Box stays out of the way, all you have are personal and purpose (kitchen, etc) terminals.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 27, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> We're so close to `full virtualization` that a machine like this isn't really......   ok, it would still be overkill. But more realistically, a nice 2P box, say a couple Xeons (8C/16T), 24GB, 4 video cards, dedicated RAID controller and a slew of drives would make for one nice multi-user box.
> 
> Box stays out of the way, all you have are personal and purpose (kitchen, etc) terminals.



actually i was discussing that with a friend the other day, thats how i see things going as well.
One PC in the home does all the work, the rest just get it streamed.

we can stream 1080P content from a PC to a 360 (re-encoding in a compatible format if needed), it wont be any harder for a game to be done the same way.

"but mussels, that would suck! if my brother started encoding a video while i was gaming i'd lag out!"
well, how much does it suck when he flushes the toilet when you're in the shower? people live with compromises for convenience/cheapness


----------



## Imsochobo (Aug 27, 2009)

Thats about right two last posts.

This will run at 75W at about 2.3-2.4-2.5 ghz around there, nothing more at 45 NM.
Theese will deffy come with a 32 NM shrink.

Theese will be very cold to have the amount of cores.

Cache is reworked, memory latency decreased, quad memory channel per cpu meaning 8 memory slots so they double the memory bandwidth.
This is possible when doubling amount of cpu die's and IMC that follows with it per cpu package.

*Wonders how intel respons.*


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Aug 27, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Yeah, you do remember that Bill Gates was wrong about the whole 640k thing, right?
> 
> Massive multi-core processing is the way of the future, because there's a limit to how fast you can get a single core to go.  I'm not being mean, but if you're not believing this by now, you're deluding yourself.



He never said that.

on the topic, I believe future processors would present themselves as much simpler units than they really are.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> actually i was discussing that with a friend the other day, thats how i see things going as well.
> One PC in the home does all the work, the rest just get it streamed.
> 
> we can stream 1080P content from a PC to a 360 (re-encoding in a compatible format if needed), it wont be any harder for a game to be done the same way.
> ...



Yup. I'm going with "instead of 4 x $1K computers, I'll put $4K into a single box". But people could certainly save money and it still be a great experience. As other posters have stated, i7's have a lot of umph, and could probably support two people rather well. Got $2K for two machines? Put $1500 into one.

A big help is fast storage... just built two of these for work:







Has an Adaptec 5805 with 8 x WD RE3. Does about 600/400 read/write and is hella responsive. I've run drive benchmarks in one VM while using another, and I couldn't perceive any loss of performance. All the while WCG is running (4T @ 100%). I love these machines


----------



## Imsochobo (Aug 27, 2009)

we just got 3 Z800 with 192 GB memory and 2x 3.2 ghz Core I7.
Designers and those who use them, complain about memory and graphics power, not cpu power, they didnt complain about cpu power with 2x dualcores xeons.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 27, 2009)

HP right? Was just looking at them earlier today (mostly the 400, 600 series). Though I'll probably build IT's new workstations as well.

Heh, I hope there's no complaining now.


----------



## Imsochobo (Aug 27, 2009)

z800 yeap.

well, the 192 gb/92 gb provides no issues except gpu performance, snap in a 4870x2 and shut em up ;D

Well, 32 gb is an issue....
They could do:
Single socket quad. @ 3ghz.
4870x2.
32 gb memory, does a better job cause better videocard.

So to put it this way, they have never complained about cpu power appearantly.
Memory and gpu power is the issue.

But the chiefs doesnt want the high memory cap. comp, so they complained with the 32 gb comp.

To put it this way:
They use OVER TWO hours to load due to memory restrictions(16gb memory that is) for some cads and drawings. they complain cause they're tired of browsing through all the newspapers on the webby.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 27, 2009)

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!

Id love to bring up Task Manager in front of my m8s when there looking at the screen lol


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 27, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Massive multi-core processing is the way of the future, because there's a limit to how fast you can get a single core to go.  I'm not being mean, but if you're not believing this by now, you're deluding yourself.


You have to understand how programs work to understand that multi-core, most of the time, is not a good thing.  It adds many layers of complexity which a single, faster core gets the same performance with pure simplicity on the coding end.

Simply put, if you got a nail and you need to hammer it in, would you rather have one really big hammer or 48 tiny hammers?


There's a few occassions where multiple cores are good but, those few times are exactly that, a few (no more than four).  Faster cores are preferred over SMT.




Mussels said:


> we can stream 1080P content from a PC to a 360 (re-encoding in a compatible format if needed), it wont be any harder for a game to be done the same way.


Except the high bandwidth (186.624 MB/s for 1920x1080 24-bit color and 30 FPS) and, if wireless, latency.


----------



## Geofrancis (Aug 27, 2009)

this system is like the system with the dual 6 core xeons that intel sell. those use a multi chip setup with 3x dual core die's. amd has done well to get 2x 6 core cpus on a die. 

the problem with them as it all went over fsb so was limited to 2 sockets because of lack of bandwidth between the cores. amd doesnt have that problem because of its hypertransport connections between all the cores

. intel will probibly build a similar system soon with 6 core i7 xeons as they have QPI links that get over the fsb problems that they had before.

it makes you think that they thought they made a mistake making there native quads then seen intels multi chip quads and thought hmm we could do that with our quads!


----------



## Swansen (Aug 27, 2009)

tidas said:


> yes....but can it crysis?



LOL, better question is will it blend???


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

WTF!! ME want one


----------



## Disparia (Aug 28, 2009)

Geofrancis:






Oh... the bandwidth. I'm getting tingly.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Geofrancis said:


> this system is like the system with the dual 6 core xeons that intel sell. those use a multi chip setup with 3x dual core die's. amd has done well to get 2x 6 core cpus on a die.


Neither Dunnington nor Istanbul chips are MCM.  The only problems associated with adding more cores is heat and power.  Like I said, I think these things are probably in the neighborhood of 230w which is massive.  As far as I know, the highest wattage on a retail processor currently is IBM POWER6 processors at 160w.  Most consumer processors are 130w or less.


----------



## thezorro (Aug 28, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Geofrancis:
> 
> 
> Oh... the bandwidth. I'm getting tingly.



nice powerpoint, but it just paper.

just my two cents.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm confused...

Intel has already shown working 4-way and 8-way Nehalem-EX systems. What's wrong with the diagram?


----------



## twilyth (Aug 28, 2009)

The only reason Intel pulled ahead of AMD was because they entered into a pact with Satan.  Supposedly the deal expires 12/21/2012 and Intel's HQ will be swallowed whole by a caldera that suddenly and mysteriously appears and then vanishes.

Of course having Rectal Hector in charge of AMD didn't hurt, but I'm giving the edge to Satan.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Except the high bandwidth (186.624 MB/s for 1920x1080 24-bit color and 30 FPS) and, if wireless, latency.



i never said uncompressed...


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

why wireless, you can use your homes electrical system or you could do this http://www.newtechnologyhome.com/leviton/leviton.htm


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i never said uncompressed...


That means massive overhead on the compressing and uncompressing ends.   If you mean some lossy format, the picture won't be near as good either.  Then again, people traded their higher quality CRT monitors for el cheapo LCDs and aren't complaining so it is possible they will give it up if the price is right.

Regardless, this trend of adding more and more cores won't persist forever.  Very few tasks benefit from SMT or even AMT.


Edit: Just remember, of the same architecture, a dual-core at 3.2 GHz is faster than a quad-core at 1.6 GHz.  The more cores you have, the more overhead is involved in keeping them all busy.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That means massive overhead on the compressing and uncompressing ends.   If you mean some lossy format, the picture won't be near as good either.  Then again, people traded their higher quality CRT monitors for el cheapo LCDs and aren't complaining so it is possible they will give it up if the price is right.
> 
> Regardless, this trend of adding more and more cores won't persist forever.  Very few tasks benefit from SMT or even AMT.
> 
> ...



compress in H264, decompress with hardware acceleration.

you  seem to think its hard, but its a feature built into the latest windows 7 - it can recode HD video and stream it to other PC's (or consoles/extenders) on the fly. you're seeing it as starting from nothing, i'm seeing it as an application for an existing tech.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 28, 2009)

Windows 7 has multi-users available, as have all OS's since XP (Pro). Just needs a bit of tweaking.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> compress in H264, decompress with hardware acceleration.
> 
> you  seem to think its hard, but its a feature built into the latest windows 7 - it can recode HD video and stream it to other PC's (or consoles/extenders) on the fly. you're seeing it as starting from nothing, i'm seeing it as an application for an existing tech.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> compress in H264, decompress with hardware acceleration.
> 
> you  seem to think its hard, but its a feature built into the latest windows 7 - it can recode HD video and stream it to other PC's (or consoles/extenders) on the fly. you're seeing it as starting from nothing, i'm seeing it as an application for an existing tech.


It takes almost two minutes for the fastest of mobile processors (can't find a similar comparison for desktop/server processors) to convert 24 seconds of video in h.264:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/mobile-cpu-charts/Mainconcept-H.264-Encoder,473.html

It would take approximately 7 hours to do a feature length (90 minutes) film.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It takes almost two minutes for the fastest of mobile processors (can't find a similar comparison for desktop/server processors) to convert 24 seconds of video in h.264:
> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/mobile-cpu-charts/Mainconcept-H.264-Encoder,473.html
> 
> It would take approximately 7 hours to do a feature length (90 minutes) film.


What was the OS used for that benchmark?
here is where the best mobile cpu is http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q9000+@+2.00GHz
the best on toms that have been benchmarked are only 1/3 the power


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Most likely Vista but it could be XP too.  It doesn't really matter.  Working with video is always a heavy task for processors because of the sheer amount of data.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Most likely Vista but it could be XP too.  It doesn't really matter.  Working with video is always a heavy task for processors because of the sheer amount of data.



and if your os would send more to your gpu would that help?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Only if the encoder is designed to and the GPU isn't already burdened.  Assuming you do send it to the GPU, that also defeats the purpose of having 48 cores.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm sorry i thought you meant recode with a device such as a laptop, sent from a pc


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

I think we're getting at putting the disk in a server and having the server send it to a laptop or screen of some sort to be viewed.  A centralized computing system for the home instead of having multiple slower processors throughout.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think we're getting at putting the disk in a server and having the server send it to a laptop or screen of some sort to be viewed.  A centralized computing system for the home instead of having multiple slower processors throughout.


Right ok, with simple satellite controllers to access on demand


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Oh, we can't forget that Hollywood would explode if that were made possible. :shadedshu

Bah.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

cant you do that now with a decent quad core a PC setup up with 2 video cards running independently and a KVM switch on 2 separate desktops or screens...
you don't need the kvm switch my bad a blue tooth setup works great through the house and you can run  more than one channel at once for multiple keyboards etc...
and these http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815158122 bad example here is one that can do HD http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817707107 better yet and cheaper http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882754006


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2009)

i think he missed the original discussion on it.

We were talking about one large, powerful system to do the encoding - say, a 48 core magny cours system (or a weaker system with GPU encoding), sending the data over the network and then weaker systems doing the DEcoding (with GPU acceleration)

the weak systems dont have to do squat but playback a 'video' with hardware acceleration.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> cant you do that now with a decent quad core a PC setup up with 2 video cards running independently and a KVM switch on 2 separate desktops or screens...


Yes, so long as HDCP isn't involved.  Hollywood tried to mandate HDCP on pretty much everything but luckily it failed.



jmcslob said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882754006


That would work.  You'd need two cables for 1080p though (125 MB/s each, 1080p is over 150 MB/s).  What that does is split the bandwidth of HDMI and sends half the packets on one cable and half on the other.  At the other end, it sticks the two sets of packets back together and puts it back into HDMI format.  It isn't encoding or decoding, just changing the medium.  I'm sure there is some degree of latency associated with it though.


----------



## hat (Aug 28, 2009)

Oh my... how much would one of these systems cost? I could see this in the basement of some hardcore WCG junkie...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i think he missed the original discussion on it.
> 
> We were talking about one large, powerful system to do the encoding - say, a 48 core magny cours system (or a weaker system with GPU encoding), sending the data over the network and then weaker systems doing the DEcoding (with GPU acceleration)
> 
> the weak systems dont have to do squat but playback a 'video' with hardware acceleration.


Exactly but why not just put the disk in the weaker system and decode straight from disk there?

In any case, my point is that CPUs need to get the power of GPUs on a single core instead of multiple cores just to get a fraction of the power of a GPU.  Maybe this is a fault with x86.  I don't know.  Regardless, we need processors with higher IPS, not more cores.  Even applications coded back in the 1980s can benefit from higher IPS--they can't benefit from more cores.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Exactly but why not just put the disk in the weaker system and decode straight from disk there?
> 
> In any case, my point is that CPUs need to get the power of GPUs on a single core instead of multiple cores just to get a fraction of the power of a GPU.  Maybe this is a fault with x86.  I don't know.  In any case, we need processors with higher IPS, not more cores.  Even applications coded back in the 1980s can benefit from higher IPS--they can't benefit from more cores.



yeah you definately missed the original discussion.

 we arent talking about playing movies here. we're talking about one main system doing everythning - games, movies, the whole lot, then encoding it and streaming it to multiple cheap ass systems around the house.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

Which could still be done better with one huge IPS processor versus 48 cores.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which could still be done better with one huge IPS processor versus 48 cores.



possibly. but that seems rather hard to make, whereas multi core systems arent.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i think he missed the original discussion on it.
> 
> We were talking about one large, powerful system to do the encoding - say, a 48 core magny cours system (or a weaker system with GPU encoding), sending the data over the network and then weaker systems doing the DEcoding (with GPU acceleration)
> 
> the weak systems dont have to do squat but playback a 'video' with hardware acceleration.


Right ok, cant you do that now with a decent home server, I'm sure a 48 core system could serve say an entire hotel


----------



## Mussels (Aug 28, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Right ok, cant you do that now with a decent home server, I'm sure a 48 core system could serve say an entire hotel



not with gaming involved.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> not with gaming involved.


ok gotcha yeah but wouldn't that have more to do with storage transfer rates


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

If you got a huge IPS processor, you could MCM them to get your multiple cores.  The point is, GPU IPS has been steadily rising since their invention.  CPU IPS barely changed since 2005 when the first multi-core processors debuted.  Now instead of focusing on IPS, they're just throwing as many low IPS cores as they can reasonable power/cool on a chip.

DirectX 11 doesn't help.  Instead of GPUs continuing their trend of higher IPS, it encourages them to do the same thing as CPUs: multiple cores...


I guess what I am getting at is that AMD and Intel are being lazy and all the programmers are having to work twice as hard to get the same goal accomplished as they would have had to if there was higher IPS and fewer cores.  I mean, there's nothing revolutionary about multiple cores but there is in increasing the IPS (e.g. the huge jump between Pentium D and Core 2).


Instead of putting 12 cores in a single processor, they should be focusing on putting the power of 12 cores into a single core.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

widen the bridge so traffic can flow more efficiently,ok but until then keep loading up the cores


----------



## btarunr (Aug 28, 2009)

The bridges are wide enough. Each 16-bit link is HyperTransport 3.1, 6.4 GT/s. On par with Intel's QPI 6.4 GT/s.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You have to understand how programs work to understand that multi-core, most of the time, is not a good thing.  It adds many layers of complexity which a single, faster core gets the same performance with pure simplicity on the coding end.
> 
> Simply put, if you got a nail and you need to hammer it in, would you rather have one really big hammer or 48 tiny hammers?
> 
> ...



Irrelevant -- like I said, there's an upper limit to how fast a single-core can go, therefore multi-core is the only way.  

Unless you think you'll be happy with 4GHz 10 years from now.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 28, 2009)

I want a 4 GHz processor with 100+ IPS.  That would be about 8 times faster than exisiting quad cores.


----------



## Disparia (Aug 28, 2009)

Heh, I was thinking more of a PCoIP or other like solution when I posted yesterday.

Hardware is already shipping, and hardware/software solutions are being incorporated into VMware's future products. You want gigabit for the best experience, but it can be done on a switched network  as it's needs are just over 100Mb (no dedicated line needed).

Shortly this will trickle down to products that I can bring into my home. Unlike all the other solutions to come out over the years (crosses fingers) you need not compromise anything with it, except for the rarer situations, like >4 monitors.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I want a 4 GHz processor with 100+ IPS.  That would be about 8 times faster than exisiting quad cores.



You're _still_ going to reach an upper limit -- one that doesn't exist with scalable multi-core programming.


----------



## skylamer (Sep 8, 2009)

Bump


----------

