Intel to release a Quad-Core CPU within the next year or so

[Master Chief]

Well, I knew it. Now that the Console wars have sort of begun, companies are unleashing more advanced hardware for PCs. AMD and Intel have been on the verge for quite a while. I was reading on Toms Hardware that Intel is releasing a Quad-Core CPU. This is interesting. Just imagine for a second...the power of four processors (more or less) on a single silicon chip. Check it out- http://tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/t...ans_uncovered/

[Borisz]

Will be released in the next year or so, will become affordable in the next 2 years or so, will have its performance used in the next 3 years or so... And knowing Intel it will require absurd cooling.

I'd take the Athlon X2 over that.

[Master Chief]

Originally Posted by Borisz

Will be released in the next year or so, will become affordable in the next 2 years or so, will have its performance used in the next 3 years or so... And knowing Intel it will require absurd cooling.

I'd take the Athlon X2 over that.

Yeah me to, but never the less, it's a step forward, and will motivate AMD to do more. Won't be long b4 we see Octo Core processors soon.

AMD says they will have a processor with more than 2 cores ready by 2007.

[D.D.]

octo core? ps3

[Master Chief]

Originally Posted by D.D.

octo core? ps3

Yeah, the Cell is quite amazing. I look forward to seeing AMD and Intel create processors with this many cores.

[D.D.]

according to this
intel should have them available for enterprise markets by 2008 and u KNOW some enthusiasts use that kinda thing (look at all the opteron users....)

then again the cell is actually a 9 core processor with the PS3 using a crippled version of it by allowing the loss of 1 spe in order to increase yeilds .___.

/me waits for news of a 9 core processor from intel or amd

[Syed Fawad]

But isn't it true that those 8 cores of CELL are in order SPEs and don't have complex circuitry to create...something where the dependant and independant instructions are branched and all that?

[Katsuya]

AMD said 6/7 core and 8 core CPUs will be something we see in the very near future. (from an Article I read over three weeks ago)

[D.D.]

Originally Posted by Syed Fawad

But isn't it true that those 8 cores of CELL are in order SPEs and don't have complex circuitry to create...something where the dependant and independant instructions are branched and all that?

take a read around this place and you'll see that its not the case at all. the cell's spes are not as crippled as they seem and in order cpus are certainly not as weak as the spoiled out of order programmers want you to believe...

[Project Epsilon]

question: doesn't an app or game need to be programmed to use the cores?

[Demigod]

Originally Posted by Project Epsilon

question: doesn't an app or game need to be programmed to use the cores?

In a way yes. Basically, you need to have a multi-threaded program to be able to take advantage of multiple cores. A lot of rendering and encoding programs do so now, due to the emergence of dual-core and hyperthreading. Games have yet to do so, which is a shame as multi-threading could help tremendously with games but I feel that in the future they will do so as well. Windows XP is already multi-threaded so there will be immediate benefits for it. It's not so much programming for each core, but throwing multiple threads to be used by the cores. The methodology is already there (and has been there for years), developers just have to apply them.

[Clements]

ATi and NVIDIA drivers are also now multithreaded, so there are performance increases in single-threaded games too, although the performance increase is much more pronounced in CPU-limited games (or modern games in low resolutions) and benchmarks (like Aquamark).

[zen_master]

Huh? Intel makes no sense at all, why would they make a four core cpus when they can't even get the two core one right. From what I read the Intel's dual core cpus are pure crap, its nothing more than two Pentium 4's thrown together on a single processor die. In fact there is no link whatsoever between them, which makes them use a separate chip(Northbridge) to communicate between each other , imagine the overhead on a four core processor .
AMD on the other hand has the right idea, its dual core cpus allow all the communications to happen on chip, thus lower clock speed yet better performance.

Please someone tell me how is this a good idea coming from Intel.

[Clements]

The four-core CPU will be using a new architecture that is based on the Pentium-M with a some Netburst thrown in, rather than the current lacklustre Smithfield processors.

[KillerShots]

Well... you've got to ask yourself what would make sense to be done in parallel in a game. Just looking at tasks common to nearly all games, I can name a few (I use all of these methodologies myself):

1. Event handler - multiple threads chewing on a single event list thereby cutting down the processing time. Beneficial if you have a complex game, costly if you don't.

2. Beyond the event handler, spawn threads for handling movement world-wide. Two threads locked on one object? Fine, move to the next - it will unlock eventually before the next frame if you coded it right. This involves one of the event handler's many threads spawning yet another thread and starting to process the next event on the list (within its range)

3. Multiple input threads - these aren't so important, as input tends to take a near eternity as far as the CPU is concerned... but having sleeping threads awakened by an interrupt couldn't hurt, either

4. One dedicated display update thread - when all the helper threads signal that they're ready, update the display on the current snap-shot of the world

5. One dedicated audio update thread - process current audio events and spawn others triggered by recent events

Really, as most game engine mechanics can be interpreted as events, the only real gain is from #1. If you have an extremely complex game (thousands or hundreds of thousands of events to handle per frame), then #1 provides an incredibly high performance boost.

Some example events:

1. Gravity pulls model A along vector V at Y rate per second (modified by the fraction of a second since last update)

2. Bullet B strikes model A->spawn new event to handle bullet strike

3. Player actor C manipulates console D->spawn new event to trigger open door E event

4. Dust particle F moves along vector G at Z rate per second (modified by the fraction of a second since last update)

5. Hair strand H on model A switches from vector I to vector J and moves at K rate per second (modified by the fraction of a second since last update)

expand that out to hundreds of players and hundreds more bots (like the battlefield games seem to be gearing towards) and parallel threads is a good idea.

Until we have a major architectural change, we won't see more than one thread handling any piece of hardware - so no multiple drawing threads, I'm afraid. On the other hand, the video card itself could do that sort of thing since it's an entirely separate entity from the PC - it just needs all relevant data. If it's fully programmable, you can have dynamic models being handled by the video card's multiple threaded drawing... but we're probably a long ways away from that. We'll have to settle for dynamic models being handled by events and being passed through the single draw thread.

[RF]

Not to mention, this thing would cost an arm and a leg the way intel charges for their processors.

[Demigod]

I feel things like AI would benefit greatly from multi-threading. For the first time we can have an independent AI and have complex AI routines in a video game. With modern implementations having too complex an AI would slow the entire game down (looping AI bug in Warcraft III).

Originally Posted by Reichfuher

Not to mention, this thing would cost an arm and a leg the way intel charges for their processors.

Well, to be fair the prices for Intel and AMD processors are a lot closer now than they were back in the XP days. The common misconception is that Intel charges too much for their CPUs while the real fact is that AMD has always charged too little.

[D.D.]

in my opinion, AI really doesnt need to improve...i get whooped enuff by games NOW anyway and im pretty sure im not alone. i hope. ¬.¬

i want better physics and gfx

[Demigod]

Originally Posted by D.D.

in my opinion, AI really doesnt need to improve...i get whooped enuff by games NOW anyway and im pretty sure im not alone. i hope. ¬.¬

i want better physics and gfx

Improving AI doesn't mean making the AI more difficult. It means making it smarter, more intelligent, more natural, more 'human'. This means the ability of the AI to think and make intelligent decisions (as opposed to fixed routines), and also to make mistakes and become tricked. Far Cry does this somewhat. I've seen enemies pass by me because they thought I was somewhere else. However, even Far Cry uses non-intelligent routines. I was lying in some grass so I was 'hidden', although any human player could make me out. I'm talking about 'true' intelligence where the enemy is constantly thinking and analyzing, acting and reacting. Of course this requires a tremendous amount of CPU time so it's usually not possible with single-threading, which has to constantly switch between various routines in the game and synchronize the AI with the rest of the game. However, it might be possible with multi-threading and multiple cores as you can assign an independent CPU to the task of AI.

[Xtreme2damax]

It's nice to see that pc users are going to finally get more powerful

hardware. It would be nice if those next gen processors, can utilize 128 bit

like the ps2 as well as run 64-bit and 32-bit apps still. could you imagine

octo core 128-bit procs. So when Pcsx2 1.1 or 1.2 comes out it could utilize

these 128-bit octo core cpu's, and make the ps2 emulation woes a thing of

the past, as well as be useful for Xbox 360 and ps3 emulation. Next thing

you'll know nvidia will be putting dual gpu's on a single gfx card that can be

run in sli with another graphics card of the same type, be capable of pixel

and vertex shading 4.0 or 5.0, has a core clock speed of 2 ghz and a memory

clock of 1 ghz, and have on gig of vram, although this might be a little to far

ahead that I'm thinking, It might be a possibility sometime in the near future.

BTW is there a website on AMD's plans on next gen processors? Also Is this

link or source a reliable or legit source for intels plans on next-gen

procesors?