Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Holy Crap.... 12 core processor.


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 March 2010 - 11:08 PM

Posted Image

Their next step is a 32 core processor. :|

#2 Philly

Philly
  • 401 posts

Posted 30 March 2010 - 01:39 AM

Gees... Then to think this'll probably be normal in like 5 years :rolleyes:

#3 kiddX

kiddX
  • 606 posts

Posted 30 March 2010 - 04:42 AM

Gees... Then to think this'll probably be normal in like 5 years :rolleyes:


5 years? I think that will be common in 2 years.
But I prefer AMD. I feel they offer a better value for money Posted Image

#4 Rambo

Rambo
  • 833 posts

Posted 30 March 2010 - 05:21 AM

AMD better value for money? I disagree with you there kind sir.

I recently had a friend buy a Intel i7 after being with AMD for numerous years.

#5 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 07:38 AM

5 years? I think that will be common in 2 years.
But I prefer AMD. I feel they offer a better value for money Posted Image



Sadly, your feeling is wrong. But thats okay. /pat.

Opinions are common in Technology, but they ruin lots of stuff.

#6 talbs

talbs
  • 4,055 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 07:48 AM

AMD ftw

looks intriguing though

#7 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 05:32 PM

AMD ftw

looks intriguing though



Amd = 4 cores max. Thats full of fail, not win.

L2computer.

#8 kiddX

kiddX
  • 606 posts

Posted 30 March 2010 - 06:09 PM

Intel is definitely more powerful with the Core I5/I7 series. AMD hopefully will have a strong response to keep the market competitive. I think AMD's Phenom series was excellent value for money before the I5/I7 series prices dropped.

#9 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 07:36 PM

Side note:

False advertising. I was promised 12 cores in the topic title.

Instead I received 6 cores and 12 threads.

#10 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 08:17 PM

Side note:

False advertising. I was promised 12 cores in the topic title.

Instead I received 6 cores and 12 threads.




Its okay if your to moronic to understand cores.

#11 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 08:44 PM

Its okay if your to moronic to understand cores.


Wow no. I'm reading the ad that you copy/pasted.

"First ever 6 core processor"
"* 6 cores, 12 threads"

It's okay if you're too much of a condescending prick to handle being corrected with irrefutable evidence.

#12 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 09:15 PM

Re:

Its okay if your to moronic to understand cores.


Fixed:
'It's okay if you're too moronic to understand cores.'

It's okay if you're too moronic to spell.

OP is a retard. It's 6 cores. Anyways, Xeon 7500 is where it's at.

Edited by Artificial, 30 March 2010 - 09:23 PM.


#13 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 10:54 PM

Wow no. I'm reading the ad that you copy/pasted.

"First ever 6 core processor"
"* 6 cores, 12 threads"

It's okay if you're too much of a condescending prick to handle being corrected with irrefutable evidence.



It is a 12 core processor. Look up the technical specifications. You will understand that it is 100% 12 core processor.

OP is a retard. It's 6 cores. Anyways, Xeon 7500 is where it's at.


Its 12 cores. Read the spec sheet before you go around claiming things.

#14 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 March 2010 - 11:33 PM

It is a 12 core processor. Look up the technical specifications. You will understand that it is 100% 12 core processor.



Its 12 cores. Read the spec sheet before you go around claiming things.


I dunno... not only does it say 6 cores EVERYWHERE

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18581

http://www.bit-tech....dition-review/1

However, the i7-980X is a huge step up from the i7-975, as it's the first desktop CPU to pack in six cores rather than the paltry four of the i7-975. Like the i7-975, these cores are Hyper-Threaded, so the i7-980X shows up as 12 process threads in Device Manager rather than just eight.



http://www.intel.com...ei7EE/index.htm

6 cores and 12 processing threads with IntelĀ® Hyper-Threading Technology


http://www.pcper.com...cle.php?aid=883

Posted Image


I even have a picture

Posted Image


I'm looking at multiple specs here, and no matter how many threads it can handle, there are 6 cores.

Please show me anything that hints at 12 cores. I see 12 threads everywhere and 6 cores everywhere.

The closest I've gotten to seeing "12 cores" is
"6x physical cores, 6x virtual cores"
aka... 12 threads

Edited by jcrboy, 30 March 2010 - 11:34 PM.


#15 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 02:04 AM

I dunno... not only does it say 6 cores EVERYWHERE

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18581

http://www.bit-tech....dition-review/1



http://www.intel.com...ei7EE/index.htm


http://www.pcper.com...cle.php?aid=883


I even have a picture

Posted Image


I'm looking at multiple specs here, and no matter how many threads it can handle, there are 6 cores.

Please show me anything that hints at 12 cores. I see 12 threads everywhere and 6 cores everywhere.

The closest I've gotten to seeing "12 cores" is
"6x physical cores, 6x virtual cores"
aka... 12 threads



This whole "Thread" thing is just retarded.

Those in your picture that says "Core" is not a freaking core, this is a "DIE". This die contains two exact cores that threads the data through simotanously, and acts as two seperate cores, but they both access the same area of the L2 Cache. This put each of your supposed "cores" as being 2 cores. 6x2 = 12.

Please. Please. Please. GRASP the ideal that a logical core, is a FUCKING CORE.

Intel advertises it as a six core processor, because of the way that they designed it, where they operate in pairs. This does not make it a 6 core processor though.

ntegration of a multi-core chip drives production yields down and they are more difficult to manage thermally than lower-density single-chip designs. Intel has partially countered this first problem by creating its quad-core designs by combining two dual-core on a single die with a unified cache, hence any two working dual-core dies can be used, as opposed to producing four cores on a single die and requiring all four to work to produce a quad-core.


So sick and tired of people telling me I am wrong, when I definitely am not.

#16 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 02:48 AM

This whole "Thread" thing is just retarded.

Those in your picture that says "Core" is not a freaking core, this is a "DIE". This die contains two exact cores that threads the data through simotanously, and acts as two seperate cores, but they both access the same area of the L2 Cache. This put each of your supposed "cores" as being 2 cores. 6x2 = 12.

Please. Please. Please. GRASP the ideal that a logical core, is a FUCKING CORE.

Intel advertises it as a six core processor, because of the way that they designed it, where they operate in pairs. This does not make it a 6 core processor though.



So sick and tired of people telling me I am wrong, when I definitely am not.


1. The picture is courtesy of Intel. Please ask them to be more specific when labeling the pieces of their device?
2. Why would Intel incorrectly label their product? Techies love big numbers. The higher the number, the higher the performance, the more people get excited about their shit. If they designed it with 12 cores they would say 12 cores so that people everywhere could jack off to the ad.
3. Nowhere did it say "logical core" either. It said specifically "virtual core." Please find me a mention of 12 logical cores.
4. Those look like 2 dies with 3 cores each, per your description of a quadcore... which I took the liberty of finding a picture of for argument's sake.

Posted Image


So the above processor would be an 8 core?

So sick and tired of you being wrong.

#17 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 11:52 AM

Wow. There is a lot of bickering going on. Anyway, I agree that this stuff will be commonplace in 3-6 years. I mean, look at how fast dual processors invaded the market. It shouldn't take too long...

#18 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 04:58 PM

We should have 80 core processors within 5 years! :funone:

#19 Mr. Hobo

Mr. Hobo
  • 8,152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 07:30 PM

We should have 80 core processors within 5 years! :funone:


And then the computers will be able to design better computers faster than the humans can! Then the singulatiry happens and paradise!

#20 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:03 PM

And then the computers will be able to design better computers faster than the humans can! Then the singulatiry happens and paradise!


Or terminator 3.

#21 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:09 PM

Or terminator 3.


Computers can only be good.

#22 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:16 PM

Computers can only be good.


so... we are talking more like IRobot here? haha

#23 Salamanda

Salamanda
  • 990 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:21 PM

I think I will wait for the price to drop to get this. :o

#24 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:23 PM

I think I will wait for the price to drop to get this. :o


ya.. 1 grand is a bit much. But either way. I am going to need to buy a whole new laptop in another year. So I hope some prices drop soon... they should I think

#25 Salamanda

Salamanda
  • 990 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:26 PM

Seriously, I'm so sick of technology. As soon as I buy something, it's obsolete.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users