PDA

View Full Version : How Many Cores do You Want?



TheGreatSatan
07-16-2010, 11:08 AM
Processors are on the path to Multi-Core whether our applications and games can handle it or not. I remember when I built my dual core AMD 6000+ and thinking this was my "Dream system", then a couple of years later updating my R2M5 to Quad. I don't yet have the desire to go to an i7 or a hexa-core, but I'm sure I will eventually.

At what point do you think you'll have enough cores?

x88x
07-16-2010, 11:30 AM
You can never have too many! :D

Though, tbh, for daily use 2 is more than enough. The only time I even get close to maxing out my quad-core is when I'm playing really CPU-intensive games or working with large CAD files.

Oneslowz28
07-16-2010, 01:12 PM
Right now I have, Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator, iTunes, Word, Excel, and GTA IV all open at once. My Quad core is only using 38%. If I graph the usage out over an hour or so of heavy gaming I see a 100% spike every few minutes and it only last for a few seconds. I can load up 200 photos into photoshop and I have most of my basic editing set as actions and they are hotkeyed so I can run several CPU intense processes back to back as fast as I can press keys and I still only see a 40-60% usage across all cores. As we sit right now Quad core is all anyone really needs unless you are rendering video, 3d graphics and such. For the average user 2 cores will be plenty, for power users like us 4 and 6 cores should tide us over for a few years. Octa, Deca and Dodeca core processors are on their way to the enthusiast level though, and one day in the next few years we will see Icosa cored processors.

x88x
07-16-2010, 01:25 PM
I will say, one place where squeezing massive numbers of cores onto a single chip will be great is driving down the cost of enterprise virtualization. I can run ~20 VMs on a 2x 4-core Opteron ESXi box, each with plenty of power to do normal desktop work. Imagine what could be done with thin-clients with a central server even just with current tech of, say, a top end of 8x 12-core Opterons, with a matching amount of RAM. Yes, the system would cost an ungodly amount to build, but it would be a tiny percentage of the cost of getting every single user a system that would watch the power available to each of them. Obviously a monolithic design like that would not be very fault-tolerant, but it's just a quick example.

EDIT:
Actually, looking at the current chip lineup, you could only do 6x 12-core Opterons. :(

msmrx57
07-16-2010, 02:10 PM
At least for the next 10-12 years a quad would be plenty. I've got a AMD 6400 dual core now and rarely use all of it or even most of it. I'm not a huge gamer so the only thing I do that really uses a lot of processor is photos, and not all that often.

Zephik
07-16-2010, 03:00 PM
I think I'd rather have a 5GHz i7 rather than 6 Cores.

Drum Thumper
07-16-2010, 03:42 PM
I've got a Tri Core that I abuse on a somewhat regular basis--not nearly as abusive as CJ mind you, but I can run several aps no sweat.

blueonblack
07-16-2010, 04:04 PM
Honestly, for me my quad is massive overkill, but that's why I have it.

I read an article on processing a while back that was talking about usage and the author said something to the effect of "With modern processors, just about all of the time the system has transistors just sitting around waiting for you to use them for something." My system has cores sitting around waiting.

I like that, but I'm done at quad for the foreseeable future.

d_stilgar
07-17-2010, 12:10 AM
There was good article somewhere recently that showed gaming performance increases significantly from 1 to 2, and from 2 to 3, but that improvement drops out after that for almost all games. That said, there are some games that require dual core to run at all. I think there are more cores in our future.

1986 (when I was born) - Nintendo NES is a big deal
2010 - Six cores are a big deal
2033 -???

As unbelievable as the progress from the last 24 years has been, I think the progress in 24 more years will be just as unimaginable.

Luthien
07-17-2010, 02:30 PM
I have the AMD 6 core. Do I really need that much processor? Probably not, but I needed a new one anyway (the build I'm working on is my first in about a decade), so I figured it'd be best to get a good one while I had the chance to.

slaveofconvention
07-17-2010, 07:54 PM
Honestly, for me my quad is massive overkill, but that's why I have it.

Ditto - to be honest, 95% of what I do on the computer since I got the Xbox is just as quickly done on the Q-Core 8GB RAM desktop as it would be on the 1.5 atom 1.5GB netbook... My next upgrade for the desktop will almost certainly be down to hardware failure, not a need for any more power...

blueonblack
07-17-2010, 09:09 PM
I have the AMD 6 core. Do I really need that much processor? Probably not, but I needed a new one anyway (the build I'm working on is my first in about a decade), so I figured it'd be best to get a good one while I had the chance to.

Nothing wrong with future-proofing if you're building anyway. If it's been a decade you probably did the same thing then. :)

billygoat333
07-18-2010, 04:35 AM
I want lots of cores. ;) this said... I have... well only two. and its an older two... but the pair does ok. ;)

Technochicken
07-19-2010, 12:40 AM
I'd love to get one of the new AMD six cores- a little more than twice the cpu power for twice the price of my current one- but I'd probably be better off upgrading my GPU first, especially now that more and more softwares are getting GPU acceleration.

Trace
07-24-2010, 02:36 AM
I think I'd rather have a 5GHz i7 rather than 6 Cores.

How about a 6-core i7 at 5Ghz? We did it today! (well, not 100% stable but hey!):whistler:

silverdemon
07-26-2010, 08:21 AM
I rather have higher clock-speeds than lots of cores at this moment. Since most of the software I use is either not that CPU-heavy or not optimized for multiple cores.

The second software writers create programs that are extremely effective with more cores I'll probably say: the more the merrier...

Konrad
08-13-2010, 04:51 AM
I think I'd rather have a 5GHz i7 rather than 6 Cores.

I couldn't agree more.

Better to go back to idea of having your numbers eaten by one large grizzly bear instead of a pack of wolves. Maybe not as efficient in crunching-vs-energy terms, but it's just somehow more manly. Probably because it's simpler to figure out. ;)

Of course, if multi-core is the way of the future, I'm thinking more is always better. I bumped into this (http://gizmodo.com/5050527/crays-first-windows+based-supercomputer-puts-a-64+core-datacenter-on-your-desk). Too bad it'll be obsolete ten years from now, when I can afford it.

Konrad
09-06-2010, 11:40 AM
Here (http://www.tilera.com/products/processors/TILE-Gx_Family)'s a recent find. Tilera 100-core processor, 750 GFLOPS. It's for real (though not selling as well as their 64-core version).

[Edit]
They're already working on a 200 core (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/22/tilera_quanta_server_stratton/) version.

chaksq
09-08-2010, 09:16 PM
I think I'd rather have a 5GHz i7 rather than 6 Cores.

Agreed!

BruteClaw
11-26-2010, 03:47 PM
For now my 4 core AMD Phenom II does great. Average day to day stuff only sees a max of 70% on one core while the rest sit idle at 5%. Playing some games designed for multi core will see 100% usage, but no real effect on performance by them being maxed out. So for now I am happy with my 4 cores, but when they start writing more multi core capable applications it will be the more the merrier.