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

[mdm-adph]

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.

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]

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

 

[Disparia]

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]

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]

Bump