Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: mamelukesabre

Yes and no.

There are several other architectural reasons for going to multi-core products, starting with issues of heat, clock speed, how deep they can set up a successful pipeline, memory bandwidth, etc.

At some point, the race for ultimate clock speed became counter productive. OK, so you have a couple choices at that point, and at least one of the choices involves leaving the x86 instruction set behind.

Intel ain’t about to do that. That isn’t an option.

So with that degree of freedom removed, you have to figure out how to make the x86 instruction set scale upwards in speed.


5 posted on 09/22/2009 9:15:30 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: NVDave

Stands to reason...someday they will have no choice BUT to leave the x86 pattern of doing things.


7 posted on 09/22/2009 9:33:21 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum (If you want peace prepare for war))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: NVDave
You really know your stuff!

Die shrinks and additional cores help with computing progress. A single-core Intel “Prescott” at 90nm used approx 115W at peak load. Now you have a processor (45nm “Nehalem”) with 4 much more efficient cores that use the less than that amount of power that provide 6X+ the computational power.

8 posted on 09/22/2009 9:37:05 PM PDT by Use as Directed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson