If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Types of CPU
The CPUs used in modern computers are called dual-core or quad-core
processors. Why is this a significant change from the previous generation of CPUs? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Types of CPU
"Campino" wrote in message
... The CPUs used in modern computers are called dual-core or quad-core processors. Why is this a significant change from the previous generation of CPUs? There are also chips that have 6, 8 or 12 cores. Multi-core chips are equivalent to having that many CPUs in a system, but such is offered so that all the CPUs (per chip) are on one piece of silicon. The largest machine in processing power I've seen is a 48-core machine: Four 12-core chips, with 256GB of RAM (a minimum cost of about $16k). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Types of CPU
On 02/10/2011 06:23 PM, Campino wrote:
The CPUs used in modern computers are called dual-core or quad-core processors. Why is this a significant change from the previous generation of CPUs? Making CPUs run faster has become rather difficult and very expensive. One could simply buy more computers, or put more full-fledged CPUs on the motherboard, but this is expensive, somewhat inefficient, and impractical for applications that need very fast inter-process communication. One way to make a CPU run faster cheaply is to design it as two, four, eight,... CPUs (cores) all on the same piece of silicon and let them share the workload. This does not work for everything. Some things have to be done in sequence, and splitting those tasks into multiple processes and running them in parallel may not be possible, or practical. Still, a lot of things can be split up and farmed out to different processors with all on the same piece of silicon. The dual-core CPUs today are very good at doing such things, but at most you get twice the speed overall (minus a little bit of overhead to coordinate use of the cores). As the core count goes higher, the amount of overhead required to parcel out and coordinate tasks becomes increasingly complex, and the gain in speed per additional core diminishes. One can get around the problem of diminishing returns to some extent by writing software packages designed to facilitate parceling out tasks and running them in parallel, but there is a lot of software written before programmers were concerned about such things. So, improvements are being made in how to manage tasks on multiple cores and in designing workflow so it can be easily parceled out and run on multiple cores simultaneously. Net result: Computers keep getting faster and the cost of computing keeps going down, faster than would be the case if single-core CPUs were all that was available. Cheers! jim b. -- UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely expects users to be computer-friendly. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Types of CPU
On Feb 11, 11:26*am, Jim Beard wrote:
On 02/10/2011 06:23 PM, Campino wrote: The CPUs used in modern computers are called dual-core or quad-core processors. Why is this a significant change from the previous generation of CPUs? Making CPUs run faster has become rather difficult and very expensive. * *One could simply buy more computers, or put more full-fledged CPUs on the motherboard, but this is expensive, somewhat inefficient, and impractical for applications that need very fast inter-process communication. *One way to make a CPU run faster cheaply is to design it as two, four, eight,... CPUs (cores) all on the same piece of silicon and let them share the workload. This does not work for everything. *Some things have to be done in sequence, and splitting those tasks into multiple processes and running them in parallel may not be possible, or practical. Still, a lot of things can be split up and farmed out to different processors with all on the same piece of silicon. *The dual-core CPUs today are very good at doing such things, but at most you get twice the speed overall (minus a little bit of overhead to coordinate use of the cores). As the core count goes higher, the amount of overhead required to parcel out and coordinate tasks becomes increasingly complex, and the gain in speed per additional core diminishes. One can get around the problem of diminishing returns to some extent by writing software packages designed to facilitate parceling out tasks and running them in parallel, but there is a lot of software written before programmers were concerned about such things. *So, improvements are being made in how to manage tasks on multiple cores and in designing workflow so it can be easily parceled out and run on multiple cores simultaneously. Net result: *Computers keep getting faster and the cost of computing keeps going down, faster than would be the case if single-core CPUs were all that was available. Cheers! jim b. -- UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely * * * expects users to be computer-friendly. Thanks a lot. That was very good and helpful information. cheers campino |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: URGENT NEED - MICROSOFT OFFICE SOFTWARE ALL VERSIONS/TYPES -MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP PRO, WINDOWS 2000 PRO, WINDOWS HOME ALL VERSIONS/TYPES- NEED AS MANY AS YOU CAN SELL US | none | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | April 16th 09 02:18 PM |
So many AMD AM2 CPU types? | Joe_Z[_3_] | Overclocking AMD Processors | 4 | October 29th 07 01:26 PM |
memory types | john | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | April 7th 05 06:57 PM |
Two types of T-bird Bs? | dbd | Overclocking AMD Processors | 4 | December 22nd 03 08:33 PM |
Memory types | BWGames | Asus Motherboards | 2 | July 20th 03 03:02 PM |