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

[aj28]

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No, because the comment referenced was originally made as an argument against the idea that hyper-threading meant your processor had some sort of "virtual core" count equal to double your actual cores.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.

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]

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

 

[btarunr]

How much power does this monster suck?

Running costs will be pocket-change for a datacenter.

 

[twilyth]

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]

the slide says: "same power envelope"

 

[mdm-adph]

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]

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

Intel going to MCM a Dunnington too?

 

[YinYang.ERROR]

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

 

[Disparia]

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

 

[El Fiendo]

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]

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]

gotta heat your basement somehow

 

[pr0n Inspector]

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

 

[Chicken Patty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[aj28]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.



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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!