INTC announces QUAD cores early

nitro · Nov 16, 2006

http://www.linux-mag.com/content/view/2816/

Seems like we will be seeing 16 cores soon. A whole new race is on now between AMD and INTC. From what I understand, the Opterons will rule (scale more easily) as more and more cores are added.

nitro

Tums · Nov 17, 2006

try stuffing 2x Quad core into a Mac: (8 CPU)

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/desktops/0,1000000968,39284700,00.htm

Bernoulli · Nov 17, 2006

I'm curious, is there any trading platform that can take advantage of multiple cores?

I don't keep up with cpu's anymore. Is multiple core the same as dual (or more) cpu's, except they're on the same silicon?

Thanks.

SideShowBob · Nov 17, 2006

Tradestation can handle multiple processors, but I don't know if it's been optimized. Because "tradestation" is actually made up of multiple processes it will use two CPUs better than say Wealthlab which (for now at least) is tied to a single CPU. But I doubt this increases the speed of TS all that much since it's likely losing a lot of time passing information between the processes.

I'd be very interested if some of the other trading and backtesting platforms could take advantage of this.

SSB

trading_time · Nov 17, 2006

http://www.computerforum.com/64278-4x4.html

my friend whos taking microelectronic engineering says 4x4 is a better way to go off the bat because you'll be running dual hypertransport and there won't be a bottleneck with any other parts on the motherboard with two cpu's rather than having one lane between the cpu and the rest of the motherboard.

he claims AMD is concentrating more on revamping the whole system and that 4x4 is more like having two computers in one computer case... kind of like having two dual core computers in a cluster only on a single motherboard and such..
oh and he claims the AMD will be ahead of intel very soon according to moore's law... since athlon 64 is actually considered an "old" architecture... and that intel is just reusing their old pentium 3 architecture only this time in desktops.

i mean you have to admit, for still using 90nm AMD is doing pretty well as far as power usage/performance... but i still think core 2 duo is the best buy for the moment. i can see what he means though, with the whole two system in one system thing...
More...

my friend seems to think the cmos will. hes majoring in microelectronic engineering so im inclined to believe him.. but i dono, the benchmarks talk louder than he does right now.

he tells me hes seen the core 2 duo design and its fairly simple in comparison with athlon 64 considering how new it is and such... like AMD integrated way more into the processor than intel did, making things closer and faster for how cool it really runs.
i mean, the type of speed doubling with dual core and then doubling again with quad core is just isn't going to be satisfied with a single motherboard and such... they're going to have to leave the pci bus behind and completely use pci-express if computers are going to increase in speed enough.

i mean there are certain step for things to happen in a computer, you've got to think of it realtime as in everything happening simultaneously and also step by step 4ms for one thing to happen and 4ms for another thing. sure, quad core cut the processors 4ms down to 1ms, but the other parts in the computer still take their time to do stuff...

a bottleneck isnt necessarily a wall that you hit, its more of one thing effecting it more slowly than another part in the computer...

like intels fsb vs. ddr2 memory bandwidth, i tested earlier and i had significant increases from ddr2 533 to ddr2 667 and ddr2 800 all running 4-4-4-12 and 1066mhz fsb.
well, then i tested at ddr2 667 4-4-4-12 and 1333mhz fsb, and it outperformed ddr2 800 4-4-4-12 1066mhz fsb by about 100-200mbps

this means that increasing the fsb i got a better increase in comparison with increasing my memories bandwidth. overclocking both alongside each other would give me the best increase, but overclocking one still decreases the amount of time the information spent in that area.... which is the type of thing that AMD is trying to increase... how much time the info spends at certain places in the system i guess. or so my friend claims.

there was never a need to make the cmos and such better, but with quad core there will be a need for it i guess. im not sure how it works but my buddy knows wut hes talking about...
More...

ElectricSavant · Nov 18, 2006

This I will remember...as i struggle to keep up...you guys are awesome...

i mean there are certain step for things to happen in a computer, you've got to think of it realtime as in everything happening simultaneously and also step by step 4ms for one thing to happen and 4ms for another thing. sure, quad core cut the processors 4ms down to 1ms, but the other parts in the computer still take their time to do stuff...

Log in or Sign up

INTC announces QUAD cores early

nitro

Tums

Bernoulli

SideShowBob

trading_time

ElectricSavant