• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

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

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

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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.*
 
mdm-adph said:
Yeah, you do remember that Bill Gates was wrong about the whole 640k thing, right? :wtf:

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.
Click to expand...

He never said that.

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

"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
Click to expand...

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:

NewServer.jpg


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 :)
 
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.
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!

Id love to bring up Task Manager in front of my m8s when there looking at the screen lol
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Except the high bandwidth (186.624 MB/s for 1920x1080 24-bit color and 30 FPS) and, if wireless, latency.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
Geofrancis:

BecktonDiagram.png


Oh... the bandwidth. I'm getting tingly.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I'm confused...

Intel has already shown working 4-way and 8-way Nehalem-EX systems. What's wrong with the diagram?
 
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 said:
i never said uncompressed...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top