Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Holy Crap.... 12 core processor.


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#26 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:45 PM

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


True, but just because something is obsolete doesn't mean it isn't good. Ive had my same laptop for 6 years. It can handle most everything I want to do (aside from any kind of gaming).

#27 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:53 PM

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



In Irobot it incorrectly portrayed them as being capable of evil. Computers are incapable of this.

#28 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:26 PM

In Irobot it incorrectly portrayed them as being capable of evil. Computers are incapable of this.


It showed them following rules, not being evil. They are not inherently evil. Of course not, I agree that they are incapable of evil. I'm just saying that they were following rules that ended up causing harm. They simply do what they are programmed to do. I was just trying to make a joke. that's all.

#29 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:27 PM

It showed them following rules, not being evil. They are not inherently evil. Of course not, I agree that they are incapable of evil. I'm just saying that they were following rules that ended up causing harm. They simply do what they are programmed to do. I was just trying to make a joke. that's all.



They cannot cause harm in any way. They are incapable of doing any wrong. THEY ARE PERFECT.

#30 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:29 PM

They cannot cause harm in any way. They are incapable of doing any wrong. THEY ARE PERFECT.


Programmers make mistakes

#31 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:30 PM

They cannot cause harm in any way. They are incapable of doing any wrong. THEY ARE PERFECT.


Haha ok. Yes they are perfect. It's just about people who control them. Anyway, I see this being the same argument as the gun control one.

Programmers make mistakes


ya. That's what I was getting at when I was typing my last reply.

#32 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:38 PM

Programmers make mistakes



If you where a -full- programmer, you would know that we dont really make mistakes, we just make it look like we make mistakes, so that way we can make more money.

Haha ok. Yes they are perfect. It's just about people who control them. Anyway, I see this being the same argument as the gun control one.



ya. That's what I was getting at when I was typing my last reply.



Not an argument. Its a statement of the facts dood.

#33 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:42 PM

If you where a -full- programmer, you would know that we dont really make mistakes, we just make it look like we make mistakes, so that way we can make more money.




Not an argument. Its a statement of the facts dood.


I suppose I am so far behind I couldn't grasp this concept then huh? lol dat funny

If you where a -full- programmer, you would know that we dont really make mistakes, we just make it look like we make mistakes, so that way we can make more money.




Not an argument. Its a statement of the facts dood.


ya. I was just saying t sounds lke the gun control argument.

"Guns kill people!"

"No, People kill people!"

I just think it's funny.

#34 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 April 2010 - 12:00 AM

Prices are a bit high. I guess I can wait a while before buying my six core processor.

#35 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 12:03 AM

Prices are a bit high. I guess I can wait a while before buying my six core processor.


burn

#36 Salamanda

Salamanda
  • 990 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 April 2010 - 12:06 AM

What the fuck could use 12 cores right now?
I mean, 4 cores is pretty damn ok.
Anything higher than say 6 OR 12 just seems like the only purpose is to be macho.

#37 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 01 April 2010 - 04:05 AM

Programmers make mistakes


I think you'll find they're actually unintentional features. ;)

#38 moosejuice

moosejuice
  • 372 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 09:49 AM

Anything higher than say 6 OR 12 just seems like the only purpose is to be macho.


Maybe this should be posted in the testosterone board.

#39 Fatal

Fatal
  • 3,615 posts


Users Awards

Posted 04 April 2010 - 01:34 AM

It's 6 core. Calling it 12 core is wrong and misleading. Hyper-Threading does NOT equal a core. It is CLOSE to having the performance of twice the cores (12 core) and acts similarly to a 12-core machine, but it is essentially just a 6 core with some speed enhancements, calling their 4 core chips as 8 cores and there 6 core chips as 12 core is just plain stupid. A real 12 core chip would be better / higher performance than a 6 core chip with Hyper-Threading enabled.

Sorry iargue, but you are definitely wrong. I can see what you're saying but technically it's just not correct. This is a 6 core chip. If you posted this as 12 core in any enthusiast forum you'd be laughed at.


Here is the REAL 8-core being announced.

8 core

#40 ToxicS

ToxicS
  • 2,580 posts

Posted 15 April 2010 - 09:45 AM

meh quad core should be fine for about 10 years.. I hope..

#41 JesterC

JesterC
  • 21 posts

Posted 16 May 2010 - 06:04 PM

Intel today launched the Xeon 7500 processor series, which offers up to eight cores packed in a single chip that's able to handle 16 threads at once. Systems can include up to 256 chips per server to combine for 2,048 cores and 4,098 threads.

#42 Mikes

Mikes
  • 411 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 May 2010 - 11:33 PM

Intel today launched the Xeon 7500 processor series, which offers up to eight cores packed in a single chip that's able to handle 16 threads at once. Systems can include up to 256 chips per server to combine for 2,048 cores and 4,098 threads.


I don't know much about computers... but that sounds like a lot....

#43 artificial

artificial
  • 186 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 May 2010 - 11:48 PM

I love how Iargue didn't reply after being proven wrong. :rolleyes:

#44 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2010 - 12:52 AM

I love how Iargue didn't reply after being proven wrong. :rolleyes:



I was not proven wrong. I have been to Intel, and they have show me how the I7 works, and thus I do know that Fatal is wrong, but sincerely believes that he is right. One cannot argue with a person that believes beyond doubt that he is right.

#45 ArticTheTiger

ArticTheTiger
  • 1,314 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 12:55 AM

I was not proven wrong. I have been to Intel, and they have show me how the I7 works, and thus I do know that Fatal is wrong, but sincerely believes that he is right. One cannot argue with a person that believes beyond doubt that he is right.


How DOES it work? As in, technical details.

It must have been awesome being told by an Intel employee...

#46 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:25 AM

How DOES it work? As in, technical details.

It must have been awesome being told by an Intel employee...



The basics are this.

The core was four die on it, and on each die relies two cores. Whenever data is received to the cpu it is sent to a respective die based upon the need, and then from there it is processed by both cores. This is done to prevent any bottlenecks with the memory access. For every two die's, a memory controller is preset which directly accessed the memory for the CPU, as needed. If all four cores were to have its own memory controller on a 32-bit system, then we would be presented with a memory bottleneck. Intel has ideals to overcome this in later generations (And it would seem that they have).

This is why they market it was a 4 core computer, rather then a 8 core processor.

And I was shown more then how it works, they also showed me other processors, and impressed me with their operation :p. I did get to see how they go about designing their processors.

#47 ArticTheTiger

ArticTheTiger
  • 1,314 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 01:42 AM

So what you're saying in kindergarten language is they 'baked' 2 cores in 1, and Intel is developing a way to overcome current limitations? sounds awesome :)

#48 iargue

iargue
  • 10,048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 May 2010 - 02:40 AM

So what you're saying in kindergarten language is they 'baked' 2 cores in 1, and Intel is developing a way to overcome current limitations? sounds awesome :)



As you can see from the post about the Xeon 7500. This is a server based technology, which is always run in 64 bit mode, so they are capable of expanding to better handle memory access.

Soon the amount of processing power that we can include will far exceed the processing power of the human brain.

#49 ArticTheTiger

ArticTheTiger
  • 1,314 posts

Posted 17 May 2010 - 02:54 AM

As you can see from the post about the Xeon 7500. This is a server based technology, which is always run in 64 bit mode, so they are capable of expanding to better handle memory access.

Soon the amount of processing power that we can include will far exceed the processing power of the human brain.


And hundreds of geeks who love this shit will braingasm over SEEING one :p

And then the robotocalypse, definately.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users