AMD Adds New Six-Core AMD Opteron HE Processors

[mdm-adph]

someone please come out with a 4ghz processor, stop using cores as a scape goat, & bring me some raw power

Yeah... steelkane, welcome to the massively-multi-cored future.

Massively-multi-cored future, I see steelkane has never met you before.

In a few years, you'll be seeing 16-core chips. Super-high clock speeds are soon to be a thing of the past.

 

[devguy]

AMD better make an FX version of this 6 core or Ill go Intel/Nvidia. I SWEAR IT! AMD is been half stepping far to long. I wanna see an FX chip and I wanna see it NOW.

I doubt we'll see the FX series again for a while (perhaps if AMD has a high end chip that Intel doesn't have an answer to). I bet when that time comes, Intel will bring back the Intel Extreme(ly power consuming) Edition!

Before that though, we'll probably see the Phenom II x4 Hispanic Edition, because the Black Edition is getting played out.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Yeah... steelkane, welcome to the massively-multi-cored future.

Massively-multi-cored future, I see steelkane has never met you before.

In a few years, you'll be seeing 16-core chips. Super-high clock speeds are soon to be a thing of the past.

Not TPU they won't be. As long as it has voltage someone on these forums will figure out a way to make it faster.

You want 4Ghz? Buy a 955 and OC that som-bitch till the next lunar eclipse!

 

[mdm-adph]

Not TPU they won't be. As long as it has voltage someone on these forums will figure out a way to make it faster.

You want 4Ghz? Buy a 955 and OC that som-bitch till the next lunar eclipse!

Oh, there will always be TPU.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the average clockspeed of a core in a 32-core chip (5 years from now) is only 1GHz.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Oh, there will always be TPU.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the average clockspeed of a core in a 32-core chip (5 years from now) is only 1GHz.

I would be surprised. That would deserve a fiery butt rape.

 

[mdm-adph]

I would be surprised. That would deserve a fiery butt rape.

Even if the cumulative ability of that 32-core 1GHz chip would make it capable of 10 times more work than your 4GHz quadcore?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Just better hope you got multithreaded applications to run on it. That would be so depressing to have 32 cores and only be able to use one.

 

[mdm-adph]

Just better hope you got multithreaded applications to run on it. That would be so depressing to have 32 cores and only be able to use one.

I have a feeling we'll have quite a few of them in 5 years or so.

 

[Disparia]

This man

does not sympathize with you.

I'd love a six-core Opteron or i7 system right about now because the software I use is so multi-threaded already!

We're also on the verge of bare-metal hypervisors (ESX/ESXi, Hyper-V) providing GPU segmentation. Coupled with technologies such as PCoIP, we won't be far from the "home mainframe", something that I've dabbled with since the late 90's. Unfortunately all solutions to date have had severe limitations. But PCoIP can overcome distance from the computer and a hyper-visor that allows you to assign a GPU will allow for fully-functioning stations.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I have a feeling we'll have quite a few of them in 5 years or so.

We have has multi threaded CPUs for a while now. Programers have yet to really catch up. I bet 5 years from now using 4 cores will be standard but a LONG way from 32.

 

[mdm-adph]

We have has multi threaded CPUs for a while now. Programers have yet to really catch up. I bet 5 years from now using 4 cores will be standard but a LONG way from 32.

I don't know -- I wouldn't be so sure about that.

The problem with programming pipelined code isn't just "having to code for a set number of cores" -- it's thinking about coding in a different way, entirely. Once you get the hang of spinning off your threads to be executed concurrently, it doesn't matter if your CPU has 4 cores, or 8, or 32, or 1000 -- your program works the same, it just gets done quicker.

"True" multithreaded applications continue to scale no matter how many cores are used -- think that one Valve particle test, and I think Surpreme Commander.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I don't know -- I wouldn't be so sure about that.

The problem with programming pipelined code isn't just "having to code for a set number of cores" -- it's thinking about coding in a different way, entirely. Once you get the hang of spinning off your threads to be executed concurrently, it doesn't matter if your CPU has 4 cores, or 8, or 32, or 1000 -- your program works the same, it just gets done quicker.

"True" multithreaded applications continue to scale no matter how many cores are used -- think that one Valve particle test, and I think Surpreme Commander.

I guess no need to argue really. Time will tell and even then someone will still claim they are right "technically". One thing I have noticed about people is even when the are wrong they are still "right". Arguing on this forum is like arguing with my wife. Even when I'm right, I'm still wrong.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You also need something that represents a large enough CPU workload to even bother multithreading it. I've only made two programs out of dozens of others that had even CPU burden to warrant making it multithreaded...

-Decompiles model files and recompiles them into a different version. Over 500 files and takes about 6 minutes on a dual, quad-core Xeon.

-Calculated different paths a Knight could take to touch all 64 tiles on a chess board. It relied on random values so the time to find a working path could take anywhere from half a second to a minute on eight cores.

A lot of the rest were also multithreaded but none of them put a single core to use at more than 5%. They are mulithreaded in order to prevent lock ups but most of the time, those threads are idle.


An example: all modern browsers are multithreaded but the work they do isn't that CPU intensive so you're still only looking at like 5% usage on a single core.

 

[mdm-adph]

You also need something that represents a large enough CPU workload to even bother multithreading it. I've only made two programs out of dozens of others that had even CPU burden to warrant making it multithreaded...

-Decompiles model files and recompiles them into a different version. Over 500 files and takes about 6 minutes on a dual, quad-core Xeon.

-Calculated different paths a Knight could take to touch all 64 tiles on a chess board. It relied on random values so the time to find a working path could take anywhere from half a second to a minute on eight cores.

A lot of the rest were also multithreaded but none of them put a single core to use at more than 5%. They are mulithreaded in order to prevent lock ups but most of the time, those threads are idle.


An example: all modern browsers are multithreaded but the work they do isn't that CPU intensive so you're still only looking at like 5% usage on a single core.

Hey, give it some time -- 5 years ago I could browse the web pretty nicely on a Pentium IV. Today, most web pages I go to on my old Pentium IV bog down, especially if they're Flash heavy. You never know what the future is going to hold!

 

[Meecrob]

Um, you do know that the "FX" moniker has been replaced with "black edition" dont you?

They are the same damn thing, the FX was just an higher binned chip with unlocked multi, same as the black editions, if you cant deal with that.....you should go intel and get an X chip, of course thats going to cost you a good bit since intel still charges a high premium for an unlocked multi.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Um, you do know that the "FX" moniker has been replaced with "black edition" dont you?

They are the same damn thing, the FX was just an higher binned chip with unlocked multi, same as the black editions, if you cant deal with that.....you should go intel and get an X chip, of course thats going to cost you a good bit since intel still charges a high premium for an unlocked multi.

The Cutlass was replaced with another "Cutlass" only it was a 6 cylinder. AMD hasn't made a CPU worth the FX name in quite sometime.

FX

Black Edition

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Hey, give it some time -- 5 years ago I could browse the web pretty nicely on a Pentium IV. Today, most web pages I go to on my old Pentium IV bog down, especially if they're Flash heavy. You never know what the future is going to hold!

I suspect HTML5 will clean up a lot of the mess that Flash made. Moreover, computer performance is climbing much faster than Internet performance.

 

[Meecrob]

The Cutlass was replaced with another "Cutlass" only it was a 6 cylinder. AMD hasn't made a CPU worth the FX name in quite sometime.

FX
http://www.hotrodscustomstuff.com/teds-cutlass/olds-cutlass-01-01.jpg

Black Edition
http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/85 Cutlass.jpg

dont really agree, the 6000be was effectivly an FX chip, thing is AMD dosnt got the king of the hill title they had back then, so nobodys really gonna pay FX or QX prices for an AMD chip, but they will buy a BE chip

my 6000 isnt even a BE and it clocks great

 

[TheMailMan78]

dont really agree, the 6000be was effectivly an FX chip, thing is AMD dosnt got the king of the hill title they had back then, so nobodys really gonna pay FX or QX prices for an AMD chip, but they will buy a BE chip

my 6000 isnt even a BE and it clocks great

My point is the name FX set a certain standard. The "BE" will never be an FX. I want a CPU thats worthy of the FX name.

 

[Meecrob]

your not gonna find it unless you can get AMD to sell you an unlocked opteron or something, because all the FX chips have ever been are binned unlocked chips, most times just opteron's with a different name and unlocked multi.

 

[erocker]

My point is the name FX set a certain standard. The "BE" will never be an FX. I want a CPU thats worthy of the FX name.

I don't get the logic. Only thing that made an FX chip an FX chip was a high, unlocked multiplier and a huge price tag, nothing more.

 

[btarunr]

My point is the name FX set a certain standard. The "BE" will never be an FX. I want a CPU thats worthy of the FX name.

Call it Chuck Norris if it makes you feel better.

 

[TheMailMan78]

your not gonna find it unless you can get AMD to sell you an unlocked opteron or something, because all the FX chips have ever been are binned unlocked chips, most times just opteron's with a different name and unlocked multi.

Well they need to do something. That i7 is bad ass.

I don't get the logic. Only thing that made an FX chip an FX chip was a high, unlocked multiplier and a huge price tag, nothing more.

My logic is simple. As I'm a simple minded person. When the FX was first introduced nothing Intel had could touch it. Now we have the "Black Edition" that has yet to live up to the FX name. I'm old fashion and superstitious. When they finnaly come out with a CPU worthy of the FX name I hope we don't get another 4 door Charger. Now you get me?

Call it Chuck Norris if it makes you feel better.

The AMD Chuck Norris. Unlocked multiplier of awesomeness.

 

[erocker]

My logic is simple. As I'm a simple minded person. When the FX was first introduced nothing Intel had could touch it. Now we have the "Black Edition" that has yet to live up to the FX name. I'm old fashion and superstitious. When they finnaly come out with a CPU worthy of the FX name I hope we don't get another 4 door Charger. Now you get me?

You mean something that hands Core i7 or any of it's offspring it's ass? I don't see that happening anytime soon. If it does happen at some point, I surely wouldn't want to pay over $1000 bucks for it. The FX series just like the Intel EE series is nothing more than corporate greed and the ability to price their product at any price they want just because it has the highest performance available.

 

[TheMailMan78]

You mean something that hands Core i7 or any of it's offspring it's ass? I don't see that happening anytime soon. If it does happen at some point, I surely wouldn't want to pay over $1000 bucks for it. The FX series just like the Intel EE series is nothing more than corporate greed and the ability to price their product at any price they want just because it has the highest performance available.

I made bold my point.