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

[Steevo]

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

 

[Deleted member 67555]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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]

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]

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

Bah.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mussels]

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]

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]

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]

not with gaming involved.

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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]

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

 

[btarunr]

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.