• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Want a new computer - which CPU, quad or i7?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Ardesco View Post
    I prefer AMD's because they have a much better design for utilising memory IMHO. If intel started to make memory controllers like AMD's we would have some killer machines knocking about!!!
    I thought the idea was to put the memory controller on the same dye as the CPU. Something that AMD did first on their x86 equivalents which now intel have followed suit with on their i7s.

    Comment


      #12
      my understanding is that core2 quad and AMD phenom II compete with each other. i7 is head and shoulders above the rest, but will cost you. i7 integrates the memory controller and uses triple channel ddr3, most of the motherboard have 6 dimm slots! Also i7 sees the reintroduction of hyper threading and also turbo mode, so that if you are only using 1 of the cores it will increase speed of that core and slow the others with the idea the power usage is still the same.

      Coming soon is i5 which doesn't use triple channel and so is a lot cheaper. AMD's next product is supposed to be a six cored monster!

      core2quad/phenom II is probably enough for most fairly demanding things, but if you want the ultimate or are looking at virtualisation stuff then i7 is the dogs whatsits.

      well thats me nearly all geeked out!

      Comment


        #13
        Have they actually made hyperthreading useful in i7? Last time round, trying to use hyperthreading to increase parallelism was hardly worthwhile.
        Originally posted by MaryPoppins
        I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
        Originally posted by vetran
        Urine is quite nourishing

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
          Mesh
          You cannot be serious !

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by d000hg View Post
            Have they actually made hyperthreading useful in i7? Last time round, trying to use hyperthreading to increase parallelism was hardly worthwhile.
            That was not so much the fault of the hardware, but the software that was available at the time.

            Now that multi-core processors are more common and have been around a while, there are more packages out there that benefit from parallelism.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by Churchill View Post
              That was not so much the fault of the hardware, but the software that was available at the time.

              Now that multi-core processors are more common and have been around a while, there are more packages out there that benefit from parallelism.
              I wrote multithreaded software targeted at PCs with quad dual-core, HT CPUs. i.e 8 real cores, appearing as 16 with HT. In every test, the parallel algorithms were faster when set to use 8 cores rather than >8... I seem to recall there was a lot of blocking between HT 'cores', or simply that they shared critical resources.
              It wasn't really worth using HT outside very specific cases, whereas real cores are lovely to write parallel code for, they just work (I was developing in C++ using Intel's compiler using OpenMP).
              Originally posted by MaryPoppins
              I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
              Originally posted by vetran
              Urine is quite nourishing

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                Have they actually made hyperthreading useful in i7? Last time round, trying to use hyperthreading to increase parallelism was hardly worthwhile.
                Intel must have reasons for thinking so. Maybe they've improved other areas of the architecture and been able to remove the bottlenecks that stopped hyperthreading from being as effective as it could have been.

                My experience of trying to increase performance with parallelism is that the memory access becomes the bottleneck, and you don't gain much, but obviously that depends on the application. You can see that faster memory access and better and bigger caching would reduce those bottlenecks.
                Will work inside IR35. Or for food.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                  I wrote multithreaded software targeted at PCs with quad dual-core, HT CPUs. i.e 8 real cores, appearing as 16 with HT. In every test, the parallel algorithms were faster when set to use 8 cores rather than >8... I seem to recall there was a lot of blocking between HT 'cores', or simply that they shared critical resources.
                  It wasn't really worth using HT outside very specific cases, whereas real cores are lovely to write parallel code for, they just work (I was developing in C++ using Intel's compiler using OpenMP).
                  Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
                  Intel must have reasons for thinking so. Maybe they've improved other areas of the architecture and been able to remove the bottlenecks that stopped hyperthreading from being as effective as it could have been.

                  My experience of trying to increase performance with parallelism is that the memory access becomes the bottleneck, and you don't gain much, but obviously that depends on the application. You can see that faster memory access and better and bigger caching would reduce those bottlenecks.
                  Perhaps the "Bottlenecks" have been moved to a not so critical area?

                  Yeah dh000g, me too!

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                    I was developing in C++ using Intel's compiler using OpenMP.
                    I've always wanted to work with OpenMP, but never really had a good reason. Unfortunately I have Visual Studio standard at home, and I think it only comes with Pro.
                    Will work inside IR35. Or for food.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by Ardesco View Post
                      I prefer AMD's because they have a much better design for utilising memory IMHO. If intel started to make memory controllers like AMD's we would have some killer machines knocking about!!!
                      TBH, one of the main architectural upgrades in the i7 was moving the memory controller to the CPU, which negates the only advantage that AMD had...


                      Also, since no one seemed to have mentioned it before, i7 is a quad-core with triple channel memory controller (which, arguably is one channel more than amd offering).
                      Finally, while the latest Phenoms II indeed offer great value, core i7 is simply more powerful.
                      An given how much contractor's time is worth, I don't think saving £50 is worth it.
                      Right now core i7 920 is probably the best solution + a beefy GPU if you plan on gaming...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X