New processor takes world record.

Check this shit out..

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
Check this shit out..

What would you need that for?

It is pretty cool.

The Bulldozer chips are actually out now. And still cheaper than i7s. NewEgg has one of the FX chips listed at $220, it's an 8 core CPU.

Sadly, they're still very new. So, there's not a lot out there that utilizes all the cores and features and what-not. But that'll change.

It's not that you NEED to overclock these CPUs to that degree ... it's that it can do it, and that's neat. It shows the quality of engineering put into the thing. That it can stably handle those speeds.

No one is going to practically try to overclock their CPU to these speeds for any sort of normal use.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
It is pretty cool.

The Bulldozer chips are actually out now. And still cheaper than i7s. NewEgg has one of the FX chips listed at $220, it's an 8 core CPU.

Sadly, they're still very new. So, there's not a lot out there that utilizes all the cores and features and what-not. But that'll change.

It's not that you NEED to overclock these CPUs to that degree ... it's that it can do it, and that's neat. It shows the quality of engineering put into the thing. That it can stably handle those speeds.

No one is going to practically try to overclock their CPU to these speeds for any sort of normal use.

so..... for showing off(the design)?

Yeah, I saw the flyer for the 8 core processor yesterday. Its what made me notice this video.

And, yes, it was for bragging rights methinks. The way they kept pouring the coolant in I could just imagine it burning/evaporating it off at speed.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

tornados2111 said:
so..... for showing off(the design)?

Pretty much.

No one is going to continuously pour in liquid nitrogen to keep the CPU running. Make no mistake, that stuff was evaporating as fast as they were pouring it in.

The fact that is CAN go 8.94 (or whatever it was) GHz without giving mangled results is sort of the point. In a generation or two, those kinds of clock speeds would be possible at a consumer level with air cooling.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

My first PC was a 486sx running at 35 mhz I think or there abouts in 1998. Its 2011 and PC's are running a bazillion times faster. 13 years... I wonder where we'll be at in another 13?

I also remember reading an article on video cards in PC gamer I think it was back in 98 or 99. They were talking about video NEVER needing to go higher than 4 megs of ram.
snickers
Boy did they screw the pooch on that day.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Well they are magazine editors and not necessarily technical professionals

Rule of thumb is speed is exponential in growth. But there is a ceiling. Then again, we probably won't reach it for awhile. I imagine CPUs will start modeling GPU behavior in some ways in a while (outside of outright having GPU cores inside them).

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
Well they are magazine editors and not necessarily technical professionals

Rule of thumb is speed is exponential in growth. But there is a ceiling. Then again, we probably won't reach it for awhile. I imagine CPUs will start modeling GPU behavior in some ways in a while (outside of outright having GPU cores inside them).

What do you mean by CPU modeling GPU behavior?

Read this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/24482/?a=f

---

Light is faster than sound:That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Your riches in life are family and friends, everything else is just a distraction.

First of all, I said what I meant

GPU has a radically different design than CPUs. They're also made in a closed system (the GPU chipset) they have to process significantly more data, and they do it much faster. For a long time they achieved this by specializing the operations in the GPU. But now things are becoming more generic. It's getting to the point where you could make an entirely generic GPU-styled chip ... which would work as a CPU. I'm not going to explain instruction/design differences. If you want to learn more about that, hit up wikipedia.

Graphene, yeah, it's molecularity smaller than silicone, right? I imagine because it's man made they can better control impurities too, at least prior to etching the chip into the material.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

tornados2111 said:
What do you mean by CPU modeling GPU behavior?

Generally speaking graphics cards can process floating point numbers (decimal numbers like 1.67) more efficiently than CPUS did (overall integer numbers are always fast aka: 7, 78, 9, -7). Likewise theres certain graphics operations that can be efficiently done in GPUs rather than CPUs (aka: vector operations, matrix translations - the heart of graphics rendering).

CPUs are starting to close that gap. Intel believes that eventually you won't even need a discrete graphics card any longer.

You still will. You can't really substitute the amount of work you can offload onto another processor.

What will probably happen is CPUs will become more sophisticated chipsets with multiple types of processors on them. That's really the only way I could see the need going away. (But at the same time, you'd also increase costs for PCs, while driving the costs of embedded devices down)

In any case, the GPUs prior to GF8 or so were vector processors. Which is different than "doing vector calculations really good". They actually operated on three or four values each cycle.

Now, GPUs are made up of hundreds of individual cores that all work in parallel but on specific classes of operations.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

"Crono" said:
You still will. You can't really substitute the amount of work you can offload onto another processor.

I don't believe we'll ever stop needing a discrete graphics card. I just know thats what Intel is pushing for.

"Crono" said:
In any case, the GPUs prior to GF8 or so were vector processors. Which is different than "doing vector calculations really good". They actually operated on three or four values each cycle

K

---

Posting And You

omegaslayer said:
I don't believe we'll ever stop needing a discrete graphics card. I just know thats what Intel is pushing for.

I'm aware. How else are they going to keep pushing forward against AMD in that realm if they don't?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.