Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th May 2007 12:46 UTC, submitted by Jamie Luowe
AMD AMD says its badly needed quad-core desktop processors are on the way, and they'll arrive bearing a new name. Two quad-core chips will be available in the second half of the year, the Phenom FX and the Phenom X4, and a dual-core chip based on a similar design called the Phenom X2 will also appear by the end of the year.
Thread beginning with comment 240434
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: too long ...
by sbergman27 on Tue 15th May 2007 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE: too long ..."
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I've posted about this before, but not lately. So here goes.

My largest XDMCP desktop server services about 50 users. We benefit from its 2 3.2GHz Xeons a good bit of the time. But not all the time. And that's with 50 users. The average desktop has dozens of processes running, *ALL* of which are asleep at most times.

By that I mean that most users are not using any processor at all at any given time.

With 50 users, we *might* benefit noticeably from a quad core.

But from a marketing perspective, I agree that AMD needs to get a quad core out fast.

Sad, isn't it?


Edit and P.S.: To those about to mention specialized workstation uses, I agree completely. There do exist individual apps which can benefit greatly from multiple cores. It's just that most peoples' desktops don't

Edited 2007-05-15 17:51

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: too long ...
by gilboa on Tue 15th May 2007 18:28 in reply to "RE[2]: too long ..."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, but the Opteron, as the Xeon target both workstation (E.g. 3D modeling, heavy math, etc) and servers. (Server applications are designed to scale very nicely)
Having said all that, even server applications (as my own - at least thus far) tend to start being memory/bus bandwidth capped on Clovertown/2x4C machines - Making it less effective then say, a 4x2C Opteron 8xx machine. (With 4 independent DIMM banks)

In short, 4C is nice, but hopefully AMD's Barcelona on-die memory controller will yield better results then Intel Clovertown's northbridge.
(...Intel's CSI is not far behind)

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: too long ...
by evangs on Wed 16th May 2007 07:41 in reply to "RE[2]: too long ..."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm currently banging my head writing out my doctoral thesis and all I can only say that more processor power is welcome. I'm not the most organized person, and as I'm writing I see the kind of results I need, or results of stuff that I did in my early years is incomplete/inapplicable and I need the most up-to-date results.

So what does this mean? On a typical day, I've got Matlab running simulations in the background, LaTeX and the assorted TeX stuff running up front, some diagramming tool, a web browser, code editor, and maybe some music ;) This is handled well by my Core Duo processor. One core is pretty busy with Matlab, the other cores are more than capable of doing the rest of the tasks. Why am I keen to see more cores? It means that I can run more instances of Matlab at once! Most of my stuff is done in batches, so assigning each core its own task works. Bring on quad and oct cores!

Yes, I know I could split the workload between multiple machines, but it's much easier to ask for a machine upgrade than asking for 4 new machines.

Reply Parent Score: 2