future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

Looks like Ryzen has got Intel's complacent bowels unblocked.
They are bringing out an "i9" with 12 cores.
But AMD will be competing with "Threadripper" a 16-core beast.
Unfortunately, it seems that will use the 4000-pins server socket.
So I can't see it being cheap.

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

On 18/5/2017 5:49 PM, wrote:
Looks like Ryzen has got Intel's complacent bowels unblocked.
They are bringing out an "i9" with 12 cores.
But AMD will be competing with "Threadripper" a 16-core beast....
These CPUs are for business use. Tell us a few games that could make
full use of 4-core CPUs?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

On Thu, 18 May 2017, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 18/5/2017 5:49 PM, wrote:
Looks like Ryzen has got Intel's complacent bowels unblocked.
They are bringing out an "i9" with 12 cores.
But AMD will be competing with "Threadripper" a 16-core beast....
These CPUs are for business use. Tell us a few games that could make full use
of 4-core CPUs?

You make that sound like "business" is a bad thing, while games is the
only useful thing to do on a computer.

Lots of people do things at home without really playing games.

This 3GHz computer is only single core, but it has hyperthreading, and I
thought from the start it was zippier than just the higher clock (compared
to my previous 1GHz Pentium).

ANd maybe you are asking the wrong question. Maybe you should be asking
why games don't make better use of multiple cores.

Michael

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

On 18/5/2017 11:02 PM, Michael Black wrote:

You make that sound like "business" is a bad thing, while games is the
only useful thing to do on a computer.
Lots of people do things at home without really playing games.

My only business use of computers is SETI@Home, now under the umbrella
of BOINC. It's definitely not my own business. :)

This 3GHz computer is only single core, but it has hyperthreading, and I
thought from the start it was zippier than just the higher clock
(compared to my previous 1GHz Pentium).
ANd maybe you are asking the wrong question. Maybe you should be asking
why games don't make better use of multiple cores.

Watch out! The backlit from all sorts of electronic monitors might blind
you and affect your eyes. :)

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 18/5/2017 5:49 PM, wrote:
Looks like Ryzen has got Intel's complacent bowels unblocked.
They are bringing out an "i9" with 12 cores.
But AMD will be competing with "Threadripper" a 16-core beast....
These CPUs are for business use. Tell us a few games that could make
full use of 4-core CPUs?


Fritz Chess ?

There are some strategy cames, which scale nicely.

Microsoft Flight Simulator, was probably good at 4C 8T.

I don't know if anyone has attempted to scale further
than that on purpose.

And the extra cores will work while you're doing 7Z compression.

I just don't like the OS support situation on a new computer.
I don't want to be stuck with only Windows 10 - that's
a definite barrier to new computer purchases here.
For example, if I run Imagemagick Q16 X64 on a large
image, will my new Win10 computer freeze ? That would suck.
That's still a problem on the latest build. And that's
a specific problem with OpenMP memory model while under
Win10.

Paul

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

On 18/5/2017 11:33 PM, Paul wrote:
These CPUs are for business use. Tell us a few games that could make
full use of 4-core CPUs?

Fritz Chess ?
There are some strategy cames, which scale nicely.
Microsoft Flight Simulator, was probably good at 4C 8T.
I don't know if anyone has attempted to scale further
than that on purpose.
And the extra cores will work while you're doing 7Z compression.
...
For example, if I run Imagemagick Q16 X64 on a large
image, will my new Win10 computer freeze ? That would suck.
That's still a problem on the latest build. And that's
a specific problem with OpenMP memory model while under
Win10.

OK, good examples. And if they were that important, the price of these
CPUs should go down. But must their realism match reality? Um....

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 18/5/2017 5:49 PM, wrote:
Looks like Ryzen has got Intel's complacent bowels unblocked.
They are bringing out an "i9" with 12 cores.
But AMD will be competing with "Threadripper" a 16-core beast....
These CPUs are for business use. Tell us a few games that could make
full use of 4-core CPUs?

I have Leela (an AI-related Go program) that runs my 4-core CPU at 100%
(too hot). But admittedly, that the only program I have that I've seen
use all 4 cores.

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

On Thu, 18 May 2017 21:19:14 -0400, Bill
wrote:

I have Leela (an AI-related Go program) that runs my 4-core CPU at 100%
(too hot). But admittedly, that the only program I have that I've seen
use all 4 cores.

Encodes are one of the easiest way to hit all four. But the CPU
needn't be hot if it's taken care of and built right. I've an
earlier-sized cooler on my CPU (Thermaltake probably), with a pretty
small fan compared to larger fans on today's CoolerMaster's standard,
one of the most popular out there.

That's an AMD quad rated at 2.2Ghz, where its top temps seldom exceed
130F when stressed. That's not the problem. It's the power draw on
the MB to support the 95-watt CPU, in turn which runs the MB temps up
to 150F. I find for the most convenient to run mine, underclocked, at
1.8Ghz.

AMD for you. I've also an Intel 2.2Ghz quad from the same production
timeframe. It's temperatures are irrelevant and ambient for the most,
probably lower ratings across due to efficacious micron-die
technology.

Or AMD for the price, as rather it should be said. I've seen some
tempting sale prices in FX Vishnu 6-cores. I'd rather the eight core
but six is half-priced and pretty close to nickel/dime wholesale, not
much over pulls or farm'em-out NOW territory.

That'll be the wildcard, at least for me, conceivably if I get into
another situation, were I to update my present AMD2+ to a socket
AMD3+, with another new MB that doubles-down for cooking eggs aside
keeping another AMD beasty-boy happy.

Scaling to the prices of old computer builds, these days, they're
hardly, relatively speaking, more than cheap battery transistor radios
that once replaced tubes. Just the basics for me, another 95-watt,
6-core update at under $150, anyway;- whatever its speed and an almost
superfluous thought.

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:37:10 AM UTC+8, Flasherly wrote:

Encodes are one of the easiest way to hit all four. But the CPU
needn't be hot if it's taken care of and built right. I've an
earlier-sized cooler on my CPU (Thermaltake probably), with a pretty
small fan compared to larger fans on today's CoolerMaster's standard,
one of the most popular out there.

I do geophysical processing. Running parallel code on a Phenom II X6 or
LGA2011 i7 would have 5 cores going 100% and the "boss" core about 25%.
That would get the stock cooler screaming at max RPM.
Generally, one finds that fastest desktop CPU is a few 100 MHz over the
equivalent server CPU. Seems that the Xeon/Opteron were made to max out,
but it was assumed that a desktop will not thrash all cores. So if you
have an application that manages that, you might get hot.

future CPUs from AMD and Intel
 

On Fri, 19 May 2017 02:54:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I do geophysical processing. Running parallel code on a Phenom II X6 or
LGA2011 i7 would have 5 cores going 100% and the "boss" core about 25%.
That would get the stock cooler screaming at max RPM.
Generally, one finds that fastest desktop CPU is a few 100 MHz over the
equivalent server CPU. Seems that the Xeon/Opteron were made to max out,
but it was assumed that a desktop will not thrash all cores. So if you
have an application that manages that, you might get hot.

Heya - I'd be surprised if a larger CoolerMaster wouldn't handle a X6
FX -- Phenom/Vishnu series, which most probably would not be an
E-series (lower energy draws), but within 95-watt averages for a $50
CPU, I saw on sale three weeks ago. And equally unsurprised, as you
say, if a stock cooler indeed would run into issues with heavy
processing loads. I wouldn't as a motif go after trashing all cores,
but I'd at least very much like to see that it could take the stress,
within reasonable resulting temps -- among at least a few givens: the
first being, free CPU coolers, including stock, may require research
and an additional cost outlay for a suitable replacement.