Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Wed 20th Aug 2008 17:13 UTC, submitted by Vito Melecka
Intel Intel unveiled a power gate feature incorporating a "turbo" mode for its upcoming Nehalem family of processors. With the turbo mode, in a situation where not all the cores are necessary for a particular workload, the ones that are idle will be turned off and power is channeled to the cores that are active, making them more efficient. Intel also showcased the Nehalem-EX for the expandable server market, which consists of eight-core processors on a single die.
Order by: Score:
Mulit vs single threaded
by magick on Wed 20th Aug 2008 18:06 UTC
magick
Member since:
2005-08-29

I just wonder what will happen when we all gonna have 16-way machines (8 core x 2 threads ?) on our desktops...

It is actually a good way to balance between multi and single threaded performance.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mulit vs single threaded
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 18:46 UTC in reply to "Mulit vs single threaded"
frantisheq Member since:
2008-07-25

sorry but i just can't ressist ;) from my experience i can tell that if i'll be using some MS OS it'll be just as slow as vista is now. remember those "what intel gave us, microsoft took from us" articles? ;) no flaming but the problem is if i use vista on my 2.4 GHz core2duo it feels just like ME on my old 400MHz Pentium II no matter if use those sassy glass window frames or not

Edited 2008-08-20 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded
by satan666 on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Mulit vs single threaded"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

remember those "what intel gave us, microsoft took from us" articles? ;)


It doesn't work like that. It's all about creating new needs. You want to sell your new products. This is where Vista comes in handy. I'll hazard a guess: these new CPUs are designed to work with Windows 7.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mulit vs single threaded
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded"
frantisheq Member since:
2008-07-25

i agree but in case of MS i'm glad i don't need it and hopefully never will. in case i will "need" their OS i'll return to the cave and sell my comp

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded
by justinc on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Mulit vs single threaded"
justinc Member since:
2006-07-24

Something is seriously wrong with your P.C.

I use Linux/*BSD/*Solaris/Windows and yes even vista and I dont see it running slow.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mulit vs single threaded
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mulit vs single threaded"
frantisheq Member since:
2008-07-25

lucky you but i expected new computer to run faster that's why i bought it. thx god for hackintosh.

ok enough because this will end up as flaming no matter how i try to avoid it ;)

PS: i'm also on XP, *Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS and no problems with speed, no HDD doing something all the time, no full 2G memory. tried server 2008 as desktop os and i have to say i like it more compared to vista

sorry for my english

Edited 2008-08-20 19:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I think you are full of crap and read an article about Vista over a year and a half ago and that is what you are using for your "experience" on the OS.

I use ultimate 32 and my hard drive is not churning away all the time.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Mulit vs single threaded
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mulit vs single threaded"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

You think I am a MS freak?

that is hilarious since I used Vista, OS X, and Ubuntu at home.

I am not an MS apologist, I simply can't stand people spewing crap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Mulit vs single threaded
by frantisheq on Thu 21st Aug 2008 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Mulit vs single threaded"
frantisheq Member since:
2008-07-25

pls i really don't want to fight with anyone here. i was just talking about my really bad experience with vista contra all other OS's i'm using. i'm not the first nor the last one. maybe it's because my comp maybe it's because ppl around me always say they want XP not vista i don't know just forget it

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Mulit vs single threaded
by Clinton on Wed 20th Aug 2008 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mulit vs single threaded"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

You must be lying or deaf then. I have a new machine running Vista, I'm sitting next to it as I type this post. Nothing is running on the machine but my browser, but it is pinging on the hard drive about once every second or two. Very annoying.

I use OS X and Linux mostly, FreeBSD and OpenBSD on some servers I run, and Vista when I'm on my wife's computer. Vista is by far the lardiest of the systems. It just can't seem to get its fat butt going.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Mulit vs single threaded
by hollovoid on Thu 21st Aug 2008 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Mulit vs single threaded"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

Vistas Indexing is quite different than that of the past, it does it when load is low, and if you have alot of files it may constantly be looking around, whereas linux and such is usually scheduled for a certain timeframe (eg 3:00am or whatever you set) It really shouldent bother performance much, and if its annoying then you either have a loud drive, or a very bright indicator light (my raptor barely whispers so it doesnt usually catch my eye) The only way I even notice its doing this is if im actually looking for it. other than that it doesnt really seem to mess with things.

Likewise my roommate has a blue beacon of madness flickering off the front of his case, and running vista bothered him quite a bit because of that. Couple that with an old noisy hdd and I can see the point.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Mulit vs single threaded
by Clinton on Thu 21st Aug 2008 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Mulit vs single threaded"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Yes! I do have one of those blue LEDs that are as pleasant as a sharp jab to the eye with a stiff carrot. I think Vista is annoying for myriad other reasons though.

Reply Score: 2

wow, you mean like
by mmu_man on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:36 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

what BeOS did years ago (but manually) with the buttons on the Pulse app ? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: wow, you mean like
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:41 UTC in reply to "wow, you mean like"
frantisheq Member since:
2008-07-25

mmm BeOS speedy gonzales ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: wow, you mean like
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 20th Aug 2008 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE: wow, you mean like"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it makes Speedy Gonzales look like Regular Gonzales.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: wow, you mean like
by frantisheq on Wed 20th Aug 2008 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wow, you mean like"
frantisheq Member since:
2008-07-25

:D

Reply Score: 0

RE: wow, you mean like
by umccullough on Wed 20th Aug 2008 21:28 UTC in reply to "wow, you mean like"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

what BeOS did years ago (but manually) with the buttons on the Pulse app ? ;)


Except (and I admit I didn't read the article) it sounds like they're boosting the performance on the remaining cores by channeling the power from the ones that are disabled (i.e., boosting single-threaded processing slightly while using the same amount of total power?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: wow, you mean like
by phoenix on Thu 21st Aug 2008 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE: wow, you mean like"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"what BeOS did years ago (but manually) with the buttons on the Pulse app ? ;)


Except (and I admit I didn't read the article) it sounds like they're boosting the performance on the remaining cores by channeling the power from the ones that are disabled (i.e., boosting single-threaded processing slightly while using the same amount of total power?)
"

Correct. For example, in a 6x 1.6 GHz CPU, they could turn off 4 of the cores, use some of the saved power to overclock the remaining two cores to 1.8 or 2.0 GHz, and get faster performance with less overall power usage.

Reply Score: 2

Turbo button!
by Ventajou on Thu 21st Aug 2008 01:00 UTC
Ventajou
Member since:
2006-10-31

For a minute I thought we were going to see the comeback of the good old Turbo button. The fancy digital display that used to show the cpu frequency could now show how many cores are active.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Turbo button!
by John Blink on Thu 21st Aug 2008 02:10 UTC in reply to "Turbo button!"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

I am sure some case accessories company will create a digital display so you know what is happening. They might even include a button that interfaces with software installed in Windows to manually control this feature. (if at all possible).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Turbo button!
by AdamW on Thu 21st Aug 2008 07:27 UTC in reply to "Turbo button!"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Ventajou: same thing I was thinking ;) I guess remembering the *original* turbo button makes us old now...sigh. I think the last system I had that had one was a 486/33. The turbo button cut it down to 16.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Turbo button!
by Kroc on Thu 21st Aug 2008 08:49 UTC in reply to "Turbo button!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

At the end of the day, the Turbo button was good for consumers. It gave them the feeling they were getting something great. The computer was noticeably "faster" with the Turbo on (despite the fact the whole situation was in fact reversed)

Consumers will believe just about anything if it's put out in front of them and they surmise what it does themselves.

This is why, even through regular consumers don't know any of the technical details at all, there's a widespread disdain for Vista because to them, it's not the same as they're used to, and therefore can't be as good.

Pleasing a consumer is a genuinely difficult thing.

Reply Score: 2

spynode
by spynode on Thu 21st Aug 2008 03:44 UTC
spynode
Member since:
2008-08-17

good'ol slashdot flamin'

Reply Score: 0

The Likes of Oracle & IBM must be grinning
by shotsman on Thu 21st Aug 2008 05:58 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

at the thought of all that lovely per Core(or two) Software Licensing money that is about to literally fall into their laps. With the advent of huge multicore CPU's their pricing models seem to be outdated buy probably unlikely to change soon.

This issue is what almost scuppered a deal last year where the software costs just became silly when a dual chip Quad core system was specified. They ended up with a dual core box instead for one software component. It is running at 70=90% CPU Load all day while the rest ran easily (10-20% cpu) on the 8core beast sitting next to it in the server room.
For example,
An 8 core system running Oracle 11g Enterprise requires 4 CPU Licenses which is 4x$47K + $10K per annum Update and support. Compare that to the cost of the hardware and you groan, shrug your shoulders and look for a different solution.
The data used above was taken from http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list.pdf

The hardware cost (ironically from IBM)was approx 1/10th of the Oracle Software license.
Its a funny old world isn't it....

Reply Score: 2

The old turbo button
by bolomkxxviii on Thu 21st Aug 2008 10:26 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

The cool thing about the old turbo button was the case manufacturers never knew which processor you were going to use so you could change the display. Mine said "HI".

Reply Score: 2