Types of CPU

Discussion in 'AMD 64 Bit' started by Campino, Feb 10, 2011.

  1. Campino

    Campino Guest

    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?
     
    Campino, Feb 10, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Campino

    D. Stussy Guest

    "Campino" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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).
     
    D. Stussy, Feb 11, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Campino

    Campino Guest

    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
     
    Campino, Feb 11, 2011
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mkirby23

    Damaged CPU?

    mkirby23, Mar 23, 2004, in forum: AMD 64 Bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,000
  2. bitsbucket

    Re: True Speed for Athlon CPU's?

    bitsbucket, Apr 3, 2004, in forum: AMD 64 Bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    611
    bitsbucket
    Apr 3, 2004
  3. Wayne Wastier
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    618
  4. Anthony
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    487
    Wes Newell
    Aug 23, 2004
  5. poachedeggs
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,260
    poachedeggs
    Feb 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page