Quad Core – any advantage?

MD
Posted By
Michael_D_Sullivan
Mar 9, 2007
Views
241
Replies
6
Status
Closed
The problem with multiple cores beyond 2 or 4 is that the bus providing data to the CPUs is the slowdown. Most processing requires data, and an 8-core machine can’t feed data to the CPUs fast enough to keep them busy. You would think an 8-lane road would allow traffic to move 8 times as fast as a 1-lane road, but if there’s just a single entrance and exit lane and most of the traffic is local then the 8-lane road stays pretty empty.

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Mar 9, 2007
Well then you obviously haven’t heard of the 80 core 65W teraflop device Intel very recently demo’ed.

That there is more than 1 lane in the duos and quads, running at the speeds they are, should be a consideration, Michael.

And, it’s the bus feeding data to and from the cpu. It’s not one way streets.
MD
Michael_D_Sullivan
Mar 9, 2007
The 80 core machine is a specially engineered demo machine, not one made using the standard architecture. And yes, the bus has to feed data to and from the CPUs, which is exactly why it is the choke point.
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Mar 9, 2007
The basic architecture change was allowing the cores to speak directly to each other instead of needing software instructions as traffic cop.

I don’t know the entire setup for that chip and whether MCH is on the chip or on the board.

I have done FSB validation for the current crop of cpus at Intel, the "choke point" as it has been correctly stated. If it were as severe as some think it is, the quads simply would not survive, and survive they do, admirably!

But it cannot go on. Physics tells us margins will shrink to nothingness as the speed goes up.

The designers at Intel are clever folks! Isn’t it interesting that Apple went with Intel, with it’s choke point problems at FSB, rather than AMD, which no longer needs FSB?
RP
Russell_Proulx
Mar 9, 2007
Funny how posting to forums is much like fishing. You throw in a line and then you need to be *very* patient.. A month goes by and then there’s one bite, then two, and then it’s a fishin’ frenzy. Thanks for the bites 🙂 Your comments reflect what I already assumed. It’s good to post this kind of info for those who are tempted by the quad core hype. At the same time it’s interesting that the new Xenon Macs appear to perform so well against Core2 systems:

<http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/results.html>

To be honest, the hardware I have now already exceeds my needs. Adobe must realize their updates are targeting a shrinking audience as many folks find that PS7 (or even less) already does everything they need (especially for pre-press).

(Off Topic:) I’m surprised there isn’t a thread on "Who’s going to PSWorld in Boston?" either here or in the ‘lounge’. It would be nice to meet some folks who frequent this forum 🙂

Russell
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
Mar 10, 2007
The reason they perform better is that they are quad core. I would expect PC quads to perform similarly, if not faster. The PC Core 2 Duos were quite fast.

So, you want speed, quad does have something to offer.
RB
Robert_Blackwell
Mar 12, 2007
I guess like you were initially hinting at, it’s not just the app but the plugins too that need to be smp aware.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections