As I understand it, AMD has patents for multi-threading. At this point they are taking the performance crown from Intel in all but hyper-threading enabled applications... Does anyone know AMD's plans for implementing multiple-thread processing ability? Is it on any of their roadmaps yet?
When will AMD implement multi-treading?
- Thread starter OICAspork
- Start date
Thats, true. but 2 reviews i saw had also asked for hyperthreading from amd. They were doing encoding and using the computer for other purposes, in this type of test amd lost.rainz said:OICAspork said:
i saw 2 reviews about the new AMD FX-53 .. it's a monster ! the P4 3.4EE has some problems to compete with it
RainZ
I hope amd adds this feature soon.
later,
epic
well i hope intel adds x86-64 bit .
Hopefully soon
Intel has its buzz word and amd has its buzz word. Both cross liscense so they can both use the tech. But they are both happy when each other are out of the red so intel can't be a monoply and amd wont be crushed.
When new buzz words come out like sse 3 then I'm sure amd will get ht in the core following intel getting sse 3
Hopefully soon
Intel has its buzz word and amd has its buzz word. Both cross liscense so they can both use the tech. But they are both happy when each other are out of the red so intel can't be a monoply and amd wont be crushed.
When new buzz words come out like sse 3 then I'm sure amd will get ht in the core following intel getting sse 3
Saem said:
yes we all knew it would happen at some time. What i'm saying is at everypoint since the k6-2 amd would have a fancy new thing and intel would have a fancy new thing. Then they would both ge tnew fancy things and they would take each others old fancy thing .
Intel had mmx , amd 3d now. intel sse which had some of 3d now in it. Amd 3dnow + and mmx , intel p4 with sse 2 , amd athlon xp with sse .
amd hammer with sse 2 and x86-64 , intel p4 with ht. P4 with x86-64 , amd ht .
Works
Yes but for how much longer. Id love to do a couple of cpu intensive tasks in the future.Tahir said:
Encoding porn takes too much time from surfing for more porn. later,
epic
arjan de lumens
Veteran
According to the Inquirer, AMD is planning to release a brand new processor core, K9, in early 2006. This core is widely rumored, but not officially confirmed, to be multithreaded ...
epicstruggle said:Thats, true. but 2 reviews i saw had also asked for hyperthreading from amd. They were doing encoding and using the computer for other purposes, in this type of test amd lost.
I hope amd adds this feature soon.
later,
epic
On the other hand, going to a 64 bit OS will help the Athlon 64 a lot when it comes to encoding/decoding.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.html?i=1961&p=4
It gains 15.5 %. And then the software wasn't even written for 64 bit operation. At least not according to Anands.
The gaming performance in that preview is old news though. I've seen newer ones where the difference was minimal for 32 bit apps.
Div X encoding:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000256
Also gains around 15%.
Peronally I would prefer AMD to create a scalar x86 core (apart from the FPU/SIMD pipeline, which can remain tripple issue, just keep it in-order) and put as many of those on a chip as they can manage ... add the ability to have lots more outstanding prefetches too and I wouldnt mind if it didnt have MT.
arjan de lumens
Veteran
Not sure how good the idea is; way too much software still relies too heavily on single-thread performance, and to achieve good performance, you still need rather deep pipelines or *very* many cores. A 486-class core (1 instruction per clock as theoretical maximum) @ 1.2M transistors, IIRC, maxed out at ~133 MHz at 0.5 micron, which would scale to only about 500 MHz at 0.13, and given the design of the 486, I would estimate it to have ~1/3 of the IPC of an AthlonFX, so you would need 15+ cores to match a 2.4Ghz AthlonFX - I am not convinced that such a setup would actually require less logic than the AthlonFX.
sorry for the ignorance, but isnt part of the delay in multi-core cpu's, that microsoft, might tell you that you need 2 licenses to use their os?
later,
epic
later,
epic
arjan de lumens
Veteran
Yeah, but making them run at higher clock speeds means inserting extra pipeline steps, costing lots of extra transistors; a scalar core capable of >2GHz at 0.13u will be a lot larger than the 486-class cores of my example, and stall a lot more. It might be easy to introduce switch-on-event mulththreading in such a core, though.MfA said:
It would be interesting; if the software support was there, it would be a matter of finding the best tradeoff of core complexity versus number of cores, which may or may not give useful results.I dont expect them to do it
epicstruggle said:
well Win 2000 Pro and Win XP pro both have support for 2 CPU's so I guess from that standpoint only the "home"version users would suffer.
Similar threads
