Octa-Core Discussion Thread

[Dennemark]

Discuss about octa-core in here, and keep it clean plz.

[PCXL-Fan]

I believe we should be discussing hexacore cpus before octacore, as nehalem has only 6 cores.


Useless for gamers for several years.

[cottonvibes]

Originally Posted by PCXL-Fan

I believe we should be discussing hexacore cpus before octacore, as nehalem has only 6 cores.


Useless for gamers for several years.

since when does it have 6?

i thought it was 8-cores.


usually they're 2^n power.

1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128...etc.


this is done because computers work with binary, and having a number like 6 wouldn't workout as well.

[Hard core Rikki]

Quick clarification before anyone jumps the gn ;p PCSX2 is NOT optimized for 8 cores, and the amount of work required to make it so is hardly worth the effort.

[3x3cUt0r]

Originally Posted by cottonvibes

since when does it have 6?

i thought it was 8-cores.


usually they're 2^n power.

1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128...etc.


this is done because computers work with binary, and having a number like 6 wouldn't workout as well.

Look at phenom and you will see 3 cores too, it has nothing to do with binary, if the program is made to use 2-128 cores it will use them but if is made to use 1 core the performance will be the same even with 2,3 or 16 cores.

[cottonvibes]

Originally Posted by 3x3cUt0r

Look at phenom and you will see 3 cores too, it has nothing to do with binary, if the program is made to use 2-128 cores it will use them but if is made to use 1 core the performance will be the same even with 2,3 or 16 cores.

actually, the phenom 3-cored processors are really phenom 4-cored processors that had 1-core fail.

then they just turn-off the 1-core that failed testing, and sell it as a 3-cored processor.
its not that they were originally designed with 3-cores in mind...



because you access things in binary, you need 2-binary digits to access 4 cores.

00 = core 0
01 = core 1
10 = core 2
11 = core 3

so that equals to 4 cores in total.

having 3-cores isn't ideal, as you would need 2 binary digits to access the 3 cores, but the binary code 11 would never be used.
and having 6 cores would require 3 binary digits, but 110 and 111 will never be used.


plus when you're actually making the circuits, i'm sure its way easier having the number of cores being 2^n
if not, you will just have dead circuits leading to the other cores.

i'm not saying its not possible to have 3 or 6 cored processors, its just that its inefficient, and the processors usually arn't designed that way.

[runawayprisoner]

Well, with Windows, there's a third bit. Microsoft introduced trinary a long time ago. Concept of binary: zero and non-zero
Concept of trinary: zero, positive and negative
And you bet... using trinary, more than four cores is possible.

[cottonvibes]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Well, with Windows, there's a third bit. Microsoft introduced trinary a long time ago. Concept of binary: zero and non-zero
Concept of trinary: zero, positive and negative
And you bet... using trinary, more than four cores is possible.

RAP,
zero, positive, and negative can all be done with binary code.

all values windows uses converts to binary code to be used by the processor.

in binary there are different ways to classify a negative number. and when you are distinguishing between negative and positive, its called signed binary.

i would give some examples, but my knowledge of signed binary is a bit rusty


but i guess you have some windows programming experience?
lots of times, microsoft code gives 0 as a success, and a negative number as a failure.
but although while programming we see these as signed decimal numbers, these numbers are really binary numbers, and thats what the hardware sees.

[fried_egg]

Intel's Dunnington: Six cores on one chip | One More Thing - CNET News.com

[cottonvibes]

Originally Posted by fried_egg

Intel's Dunnington: Six cores on one chip | One More Thing - CNET News.com

so i guess i was right about nehalem being an 8-cored chip.

The Nehalem demonstration featured a system with two quad-core processors; each processing core can handle two independent instruction sequences called threads, and the demo showed all 16 threads at work on various tasks. The processor was the very first incarnation of Nehalem--the "A0" version--built for the first time three weeks ago, Gelsinger said.

[PCXL-Fan]

Originally Posted by cottonvibes

so i guess i was right about nehalem being an 8-cored chip.

THey are coming out with a 6core version first. I assume probably to improve yeild until they get all the kinks worked out of their fabricating process, and to give more headroom for for the nehalem further down the line, so they can constantly be releasing a higher topend chip every 4 months or so with slightly higher clock speeds and/or increased core count and artificially manipulate the market. They aren't exactly being pushed to the brink by AMD so they don't exactly have to go all out.

Intel Cpu: Intel's 6-Core Nehalem and Xeon Dunnington Processors Leaked

[Phil]

One thing guys....if you go nehalem...think "frosty cooing" as a given.

[cottonvibes]

it seems the chip is 3 dual-cores put together. which explains the odd number of cores.

had they made it from scratch, they probably would have choosen 8 cores.

the phenom processor is supposedly a "true" quad-core, as it was designed from the groud-up as 4 independant cores.

intel seems to be combining dual-cores, and then making quad-cores.

Originally Posted by Phil

One thing guys....if you go nehalem...think "frosty cooing" as a given.

i wonder if they figured out a way so that they don't get too hot.

they do sell HSFs with the boxed version of the chips; so if they do need a hug HSF, then intel would loose money having to supply the big cooler...

[Phil]

cramming smaller and smaller dies equals hotter and hotter chips. nehalem is physically bigger so it can fit larger coolers for this very reason.

[tuanming]

Since it's an 8 cores then it must be an Intel cpu, Nehalem. Built on a 45nm fabrication process with integrated memory controller, SMT, and all the other goodies. It's said that it could be from 2-8 cores with 2 threads per core, neat isn't it? I'm looking forward to this one and I'm curious about the motherboard that support it.

[Phil]

itll be another 4 years before socket 775 closes out....

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by cottonvibes

RAP,
zero, positive, and negative can all be done with binary code.

all values windows uses converts to binary code to be used by the processor.

in binary there are different ways to classify a negative number. and when you are distinguishing between negative and positive, its called signed binary.

i would give some examples, but my knowledge of signed binary is a bit rusty

This is trinary, which means 0, >=1 or <=(-1). Signed binary means an extra bit in front. Not necessarily bad, but it's just taking up a bit more. What I meant is that... with only two trinaries, you can already access so many cores. Up to 9, as opposed to up to 8 with three binaries. See the difference? It's not whether or not it's possible, it's whether or not this is practical... and sadly, it's more practical than binary.

but i guess you have some windows programming experience?
lots of times, microsoft code gives 0 as a success, and a negative number as a failure.
but although while programming we see these as signed decimal numbers, these numbers are really binary numbers, and thats what the hardware sees.

0 as non-input, positive as different types of inputs, and negative as errors, or failures... or however you want to put it. More efficient in error checking, but of course... a bit more complicated than binary. Error checking in binary is a nightmare sometimes... but error checking in trinary is a breeze.

Edito: and by the way, the XBox360 has a 3-core processor... whereas the PS3 has a processor with one slave driver and six slaves. Why do you think that is the case?

[cottonvibes]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

This is trinary, which means 0, >=1 or <=(-1). Signed binary means an extra bit in front. Not necessarily bad, but it's just taking up a bit more. What I meant is that... with only two trinaries, you can already access so many cores. Up to 9, as opposed to up to 8 with three binaries. See the difference? It's not whether or not it's possible, it's whether or not this is practical... and sadly, it's more practical than binary.

well when i was talking about how 6 cores will leave 110 and 111 core-less, its more of an in-convenience, its not really a bad thing.

its not going to affect performance and stuff. using trinary (or Ternary) won't really add any performance gains, it will just make the core numbering more conveniant.

but if they were to use Ternary, then it really wouldn't make sense, because all other computing parts use binary, and they wouldn't be able to communicate easily.

[runawayprisoner]

Unless... it's three cores on two main cores again. Geebus... that's like their current quad-core processors. Four cores, but it's really just two cores with each core having two small cores.

[Phil]

in other words two dies duct taped to one chip.