Socket G34, 12 cores @ 1.9 GHz or 8 cores at 2.4 GHz?

Pradeep

Pradeep

0
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/29/amd_opteron_6100_launch/page2.html

opteron_6100_table.gif


Both at $744, 80W.
 
Take that, Hyperthreading!

Actually, eight real cores for $266 is not outlandish, though it'll be interesting to see what each of those cores is actually capable of.
 
It might be interesting in seeing a 6136 vs 6168 review.

On one hand you have 8 cores @ 2.4Ghz w/12MB shared cache, and on the other hand 12 cores @ 1.9Ghz w/12MB cache. While the 12core 6168 has a higher theoretical GHz count (22.8GHz vs 19.2GHz), each core on the 8core 6136 runs faster and has more L3 cache per core on the CPU.

Yet both are the same price?

(For those that haven't read any reviews, the "Magney-Cours" uses the same core design as the current Instanbul CPU, so per core performance is the same).
 
I'd rather have 4 cores at 5GHz. Presumably there is no market.
 
Does anyone know how to pronounce Mangy-Cours?
I'm assuming it's something like "Man-yee Coors" but francophones are sticklers for pronunciation.

I figure Coug will know.
 
Until we're able to commercially produce light-based CPUs ~3.5 to 4 GHz is about as fast as we're going to be able to go. There are inherent limits on clock speed due to things like trace capacitance/inductance. You really can't economically get around these limits. This is why we started adding cores in the first place instead of increasing clock speeds. CPUs based on light will have none of these limitations, but they're decades away.
 
jtr1962 said:
Until we're able to commercially produce light-based CPUs ~3.5 to 4 GHz is about as fast as we're going to be able to go. There are inherent limits on clock speed due to things like trace capacitance/inductance. You really can't economically get around these limits. This is why we started adding cores in the first place instead of increasing clock speeds. CPUs based on light will have none of these limitations, but they're decades away.
Click to expand...

Not at present, no...but who knows in the near term future? Just like we're stuck around $1/watt solar panels, in 5-10 could possibly be 1/10th the cost!

Revolutionary New Solution for Semiconductor, Nano Materials

 
jtr1962 said:
Until we're able to commercially produce light-based CPUs ~3.5 to 4 GHz is about as fast as we're going to be able to go. There are inherent limits on clock speed due to things like trace capacitance/inductance. You really can't economically get around these limits. This is why we started adding cores in the first place instead of increasing clock speeds. CPUs based on light will have none of these limitations, but they're decades away.
Click to expand...

Actually the Power 7 uses optical interconnects for certain pathways:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/27/ibm_power7_hpc_server/print.html
 
Mercutio said:
Mahn-yee Coors?
Click to expand...
The "s" is silent. Mahn-yee-coor is about as close as an english-speaking person can pronounce it right. If you trully want to ear it, I can try to find a microphone and send you the wave file. There's a French F1 race track that has that name too.
 
For some reason I never realized that AMD was French. I assumed that they were a US or Taiwanese company.
 
They haven't really written much since 2000, have they;-)

David: You REALLY need to get into water cooling...
 
Water cooling is certainly a better option when dealing with cards in the power range of the 5970. Let's you take that heat plus the CPU(s) and disperse it into a radiator cooled with slow running 120mm or larger fans. Benefits are far lower noise levels and higher overclocking headroom. Downside is additional cost of cooling system plus extra for waterblocked video cards, and possible total burnout if one of those couplings isn't secure. GFCI outlets would be good. I believe some of the latest water cooling kits have enough intelligence to shutdown the PC if it senses an overtemp situation.
 
Pradeep said:
Water cooling is certainly a better option when dealing with cards in the power range of the 5970. Let's you take that heat plus the CPU(s) and disperse it into a radiator cooled with slow running 120mm or larger fans. Benefits are far lower noise levels and higher overclocking headroom. Downside is additional cost of cooling system plus extra for waterblocked video cards, and possible total burnout if one of those couplings isn't secure. GFCI outlets would be good. I believe some of the latest water cooling kits have enough intelligence to shutdown the PC if it senses an overtemp situation.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm hoping that one of the vendors releasing a 5970 E6 will have factory waterblocks on it. My motherboard already does, and I can get a CPU waterblock when I switch to the i7-980X
 
sechs said:
BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE.

On the other hand, Microsoft really is a ski lodge in the Canadian Rockies.
Click to expand...
Intel DID have a facility in Oregon where the Willamette (P4) was designed. I know because my cousin worked for them there. He left them in 2001 or 2002, and I don't know if they still have that facility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top