10-26-2012 08:39 AM
83 ... 234
tools
  1. maverick786us's Avatar
    Once again I would like to dispute this. There is no such thing as too much performance. Give us the most powerful hardware we can possibly get, and the apps that make use of that processing power will follow. It always works in that order, never the other way around.
    I know that :). By overkill I mean, we don't need so much of horse power (in the form of 4 cores) for mobile devices. Its not that we will play CRYSIS or host sharepoint websites in Lumia 920.
    10-05-2012 01:40 AM
  2. a5cent's Avatar
    I know that :). By overkill I mean, we don't need so much of horse power (in the form of 4 cores) for mobile devices. Its not that we will play CRYSIS or host sharepoint websites in Lumia 920.
    But if we could, we would, wouldn't we? I would.

    If I can come home, place my Lumia 8000 next to my 42" monitor to which it then automatically establishes a WiDi link and also connects to my bluetooth 9.0 keyboard and mouse, why not let me play Crysis on it? If that single device could fulfill all of my computing needs, why not let it? Why should that be overkill? I'd throw out my desktop PC in a heartbeat if it could do that.

    Again, I'll ignore the 4 cores statement, because the number of cores isn't directly related to computing performance.
    10-05-2012 01:56 AM
  3. power5's Avatar
    Then I would ask you again why we aren't all using 48 core CPU's today? As I indicated in an earlier post, such CPU's have been around for quite some time. If more cores is always better, then where are they? It's completely unlike the MHz race were Intel hit a wall and just couldn't economically clock any higher. Those 48 core CPU's physically exist and have for years.
    They are huge. Would not fit in a phone. Last one of those I saw was the size of a guys palm. That will not fit in a phone. Barely in a tablet. Also as you stated, it costs more money to design more core chips. More circuitry and all around engineering to get more cores into the same low power envelope. Need smaller fab process to help.
    10-05-2012 07:58 AM
  4. power5's Avatar
    The Intel line has been RISC-like since the Pentium Pro came out...

    RISC processors have gained many of the advantages of CISC, CISC processors have gained many of the advantages of RISC. It isn't even worth discussing anymore.
    Yes intel uses a RISC core with CISC organizer or whatever you call it.
    I agree with this. Although I'm unsure how much of a difference it will make. I'm guessing that browsing performance on WP8 will be limited not by CPU speed but by network bandwidth. Wait and see.
    GS3 gets 48mb/s in 4glte down speeds. Its not limited by bandwidth in the least. CPU and GPU will definitely be our limiter.

    Once again I would like to dispute this. There is no such thing as too much performance. Give us the most powerful hardware we can possibly get, and the apps that make use of that processing power will follow. It always works in that order, never the other way around.
    I agree, hardware advances always spawns the software advances. Thought I wrote that, but must have only been thinking it when I posted last night. :)
    10-05-2012 08:02 AM
  5. AngryNil's Avatar
    Yup camera needs processing power.
    I'd imagine the imaging chip in the 8X isn't exactly expensive and makes the camera as zippy as you could ever want it.
    10-06-2012 05:25 AM
  6. a5cent's Avatar
    Not true. Some in the early days of tech always stated that there would never be a need for the upcoming parts that were going to change the game. Those people have been wrong every single time. Dont need more than 640k memory, dont need more than 1ghz processors, dont need more than a p4EE at 3.73ghz, dont need more than 2 cores, dont need more than 4 cores....it just keeps going over and over.
    Then I would ask you again why we aren't all using 48 core CPU's today? As I indicated in an earlier post, such CPU's have been around for quite some time. If having more cores is always better, then where are they? It's completely unlike the MHz race were Intel hit a wall and just couldn't economically clock any higher. Those 48 core CPUs physically exist and have for years.
    They are huge. Would not fit in a phone. Last one of those I saw was the size of a guys palm. That will not fit in a phone. Barely in a tablet. Also as you stated, it costs more money to design more core chips. More circuitry and all around engineering to get more cores into the same low power envelope. Need smaller fab process to help.
    Nope. ;)

    I'll finish by restating my question, but first this:

    a)
    I may be mistaken, but I think we were both discussing desktop-, not smartphone CPUs (p4EE), when I asked that question. Although not strictly necessary to make my point, I expect this to be a simpler discussion if we ignore the added constraints that come with mobile CPU's for now.

    b)
    The article I previously linked to clearly states that Intel's 48 core CPU integrates around 1.3 billion transistors. That is about as many transistors as a modern day ivy bridge CPU... a rather small chip which is easily usable in tablets.

    c)
    I can't be certain (I don't manage DARPA's research project portfolio), but I highly doubt we're capable of mass producing integrated circuits the size of mens palms. As far as I know, anything above 30mm x 30mm is ruled out simply due to reticle limits, but even if that wasn't so, exorbitant production costs and the enormous power and cooling requirements would foil our plan.

    So, a modern version of Intel's 48-core x86 CPU (originally released in 2010) would be equal in size to a run of the mill ivy bridge, and could be sold to consumers for around $200. Unfortunately, our consumer motherboards lack compatible sockets, but beyond that nothing is prevent us from fitting that core-monster of a CPU into our desktops. So, again, why haven't we already got that in our systems? If more cores is the be-all-end-all to computing performance, why aren't we already using that?
    Last edited by a5cent; 10-06-2012 at 08:55 PM.
    10-06-2012 07:57 PM
  7. power5's Avatar
    Did not see anything in that article about the die size. No idea what process node size they used in 2010, but its not 28nm. I think 45 was still the majority process. 1.3billion transistors is not all that makes a 48core chip. The architecture is much more complex for a 48core than a 4 core. I would bet the silicon is much thicker for the 48core than a 4core. Also, just because we can make a 48core does not mean its mass produceable as you stated. When DC came out, it was much more expensive than SC. They pushed on and kept working on it. Guess what? It was less power hungry than the previous P4 chips. Had twice the cores and used less power. Should not be possible according to you.

    If more cores was not the answer, why is a DC so much faster than a SC? Not even the architecture. Turn off all but one core on a modern chip. Run the same tests with the DC and SC. ONLY the single threaded tests should be equal. The SC will use less power in that test as well. I bet the SC uses more power in the multi threaded than the DC. It has to work harder than the DC, and longer than the DC to do the same task.

    Same reason we are not using 48 core chips as why we did not go from SC P4/A64 chips to Hex core chips. Have to work up to it. Also, nothing is written well enough for multi core yet so there is no need for 48 core chips. But there is need for quad cores now. So they need to push the development of quad arm chips. If they don't intel will be closing the doors of qualcomm's plants very soon. Atom SoC is already very close to the power level of ARM competitors. Right now its only useable in tablets because its not quite there yet, but look at the ARM in the iPad vs the atom in Lenovo thinkpad 2. Both last the same amount of time according to manufacturer claims. I have not searched for a real good comparison yet though. ARM is vastly inferior to Atom in complex computations.

    If an x86 powered wp8 "pro" device comes out next year, it will change the mobile world. ARM has to move faster to stuff more cores in. Just like AMD has to do to stay relevant in the x86 world. ARM will be playing in that same league very soon with intel's R&D team making huge headway.
    Last edited by power5; 11-01-2012 at 07:14 AM.
    10-26-2012 07:25 AM
  8. Bloobed's Avatar
    I am sure it has been pointed out already ( no time to read all the responses atm ), but supporting multiple cores is very different from using multiple cores effectively. They'll likely need to adjust the scheduler etc. to take full advantage of the cores while keeping power consumption down.
    10-26-2012 08:39 AM
83 ... 234
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD