This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
To-do list for Multi-core (computing):
|
I've been looking for a while, and I don't see a list of any kind anywhere showing what OSs or apps or what handle multi-core and multi-socket configurations. For instance, I was reading on a message board a few days ago where noone knew whether Win98 could handle an dual-core Athlon64 or not, or how many cores a Win2K machine could handle, or whether XP would know how divide cpu time among apps in a reasonably efficient manner. Stuff like this is almost impossible to find straight dope on without first trolling through an incredible amount of useless data. Sweetfreek 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There is major separation between generalist processors (Intel, AMD - and perhaps- Cell) and Embeddded processors (especially DSP & NPU).
I added a sectrion on this and a little discussion. It probably needs more, particularly about the differences in software environment & the implications.
--Rupert baines 14:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanna know that how these multicore(tiled or shared) processor communicate with each other and whether core simply refers toa CPU ?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.23.52.99 (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
@ 2007-02-20T01:30Z
I asked the above question because someone told me that core genrally refers to the L1 cahe and CPU is one and acts virtually as two if it were two?
I think it would be beneficial in the short term (until it is standard) to create a list of software or applications that are actually designed for multi-core computing.
My Suggestion is Each CPU has a front side and a backside. Intel or AMD should place a CPU on each side. This would make the todays dye into 4 CPU. (Most of todays CPU only place 2 CPU on one side) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy Frei (talk • contribs) 14:58, June 27, 2006
I recently spent a lot of time writing a paper on multicore and reconfigurable computing -- including a diagram of the various options that I think is unique. You can find it on my site at http://www.diycalculator.com/sp-compuniverse.shtml. I think it provides a very useful background piece that's worth an external link. But I'll leave that up to whoever is in charge. Cheers -- Max (max@diycalculator.com).
I have a question, many people on the ineternet says that a dual core processor has the capability of running twice as fast as one core, is that true? Wouldn't there be limitations of amount of data allowed to be transfered or something? This was not in the article so if someone finds an answer could you please add it? 65.92.53.225 21:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The basic answer is "definitely not". Anyway, this isn't the appropriate place to ask questions like this. You ought to read up on topics like parallel computing, instruction level parallelism, and thread-level parallelism. -- uberpenguin 02:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like some feedback on the following suggestions:
• A lot can be said in the "software impact" section that isn't specific to multicores, but is rather generally true for a multiprocessor. The software impact of multicores specifically is less significant/interesting than the impact of multiprocessors in general.
• A new section that relates(compares/contrasts) multicores with general multiprocessors is needed.
• I think the article should go further to make it absolutely clear that a multicore chip is just a more tightly integrated multiprocessor.
• Wherever possible, refer to the multiprocessor article in order to avoid confusion. For example, TLP is mentioned in the introduction - multicores in particular don't do much for TLP that multiprocessors in general don't.
• Introduce the notion of marketing as related to "hyping" the word multicore and the notion that the idea is not new.
I went ahead and merged the dual core and multi core articles into this one, since there is absolutely nothing architecture-wise about the former that cannot be included in a more general article about the latter. I reworked the intro a bit, but the article still needs serious improvement and rewriting. -- uberpenguin 22:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
There is also a mergefrom tag on Quad core, proposing a merge to this page. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject than me can handle it? Kcordina 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it "Multi-core" or "Multicore"? Afair the old article was "Multicore". Because I'm neither a native speaker nor full of knowledge about English grammar and spelling rules, somebody who meets both requirements might write some explanation to enlighten me: which variant is correct, "multi-core", "multicore" or "multi core"? From what I know, multi is a regularly used prefix, so it should be "multicore" - though I'm not, for reasons already described, sure about this. --Christianhujer 23:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Multi-core is a technical slang for Multiple core, so you can use any word related with it. But multicore can be take like a single world so it can create some confusion, so it's better to use multi - core o multi core.
I agree that "multicore" would be a single word, but I see nothing at all wrong with using "multicore", since "multi-" is an oft-used prefix (in its own right, not as an abbreviation of the word "multiple"). However, given that the choice settled on for this article is "multi-core" (with a hyphen), it is odd that "manycore" (without a hyphen) is used, since "many" seems to be seldom employed in that manner. Jim 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be "dye", not "die".
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=die
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dye
@ 2006-05-30 02:09Z
This edit is plagiarized directly from this copyrighted website.
Edit: oops, forgot to sign. J. Finkelstein 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
does a dual-core processor running at 1.5 ghz = a single-core processor running at 3 ghz?
Are any of the issues discussed in this section different than for SMP? If there are different issues, wouldn't it be good to discuss how they differ from SMP? If there aren't, then wouldn't it be better to just link to the SMP article to avoid duplication? --Smithfarm 09:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I also don't understand the difference between this and SMP. It should be explained somewhere. Sloverlord 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
from the SMP article: "SMP is one of many styles of multiprocessor machine achitecture"... i.e., SMP is a subset of multiprocessor architectures... if anything, the SMP article would link to this one, but it seems to me there are sufficient differences and concerns in each to warrant separate articles - SMP is just one (simplistic) way of using multiple processors, and unfortunately has very limited application in the real world - not everyone needs to use their computer to predict global weather or simulate nuclear explosions 69.235.255.45 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The "disadvantages" listed aren't much disadvantages at all. "Raw processing power is not the only constraint on system performance"... well yeah, DUH. But this isn't a disadvantage, it's just a limitation on real-world impact and expectations. It's like saying that "money can't buy happiness" is a disadvantage of being rich! The others are questionable too. Either this section should be renamed, or some of these points should be moved to a different section.Thelastemperor 04:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand the '9core' stuff regarding the xbox360/ps3, when pcs are still on dual core? Do those consoles actually have '9 paths' to run things? And then wouldn't there be massive overheating problems and much more power needed to run the unit too then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.144.102 (talk • contribs)
@ 2006-11-08T14:55Z
Why does my dual-core CPU computer (1496MHz) shows on the System Information only 598MHz?
@ 2006-11-10T00:44Z
This article fails to mention that actually there are two types of Multi Core architecture being used in Industry as of now. Tiled Multicore processor are simply when a simple uniprocessor core is replicated on the die. The two cores don't share cache. This is the architecture of the following processors Intel Pentium D, Dual Core Opetron, Intel Montecito, SUN UltraSparc IV etc.
What this article mention is the sahred cache multicore processors which is used by the follwoing processors : Intel woodcrest, Intel conroe , SUN Niagra, IBM power 4, IBM power 5 etc.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.23.52.99 (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
In looking for technical information for a specific chip (the Vega 1 & Vega 2), I found no mention of them in this article. Apparently they boast 24 and 48 core systems (I found out about them through a ZDNet posting) however at first glance I do not see any information about them (these systems are not cheap either). If anyone has any information about these (and time to write/read about it), it would be fantastic! --Stux 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I read this section with great interest. I fully admit I represent a commercial entity, but the fact is there is a Java framework that was built to address exactly this mulicore arms race we're in. So I added it to the list of applications supporting parallelism.
Actually, it's not an app that supports it, it's a framework that enables any data-intensive Java app to enjoy parallelism when you code with the framework. So maybe I put it in the wrong list?
Emilio 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)EmilioB
I removed a link to a multi-core library/toolkit (diff) because it seems to be self-promotion and not particularly useful to the audience of this article. Inasmuch as I can tell, the software isn't a particularly well known or popular, so its notability is also in question. However, the author of the software package has added the link back and emailed me asking for me not to remove it again. I believe this may be a conflict of interest situation, and I don't believe the link passes WP:EL because the software in question isn't any more notable than the myriad of other parallel programming toolkits that we could link. Please discuss. -- mattb @ 2006-12-20T00:47Z
The article says, "Quad-core processors are announced by Intel[2] to be produced in 2006...." Can this be updated to reflect what, if anything, Intel is actually doing now? JamesMLane t c 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Also Sony's Playstation 3 CELL processor design as a 9 core design when in actually fact it is effectively one core (PPE) with 8 (7 enabled) in a sense 'Mini-cores' (SPEs) Gamer2325 21:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
@ 2007-02-19T23:05Z
i modified this section to include AMD, after all this article is about Multi-core processors, not Intel multi-core processors, i also removed the hyperthreading as intel no longer uses it or no longer plans to use it in future cpus, as it is less engery effecient than dual cores, or adding more cores, here is a quote from the wikipedia hyper-threading article "recently Hyper-Threading has been branded as energy inefficient. For example, specialist low power CPU design company ARM has stated SMT can use up to 46% more power than dual CPU designs. Furthermore, they claim SMT increases cache thrashing by 42%, whereas dual core results in a 37% decrease[1]. These considerations are claimed to be the reason Intel has dropped SMT from new cores."--Superchad 00:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)superchad
would a dual core processor that runs at 1.86Ghz be able to run a game that requires a sinle core processor that runs at 2.6Ghz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.107.90 (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
@ 2007-03-07T06:28Z
I am adding information from the old "chip-level multiprocessing: article. The subject matter of that article is isomorphic with our article, toi the extent that I feel that no discussin is warrented. I have redirected that article to here. If there is in fact a difference of opinion, I humbly apologize and we can revert to the usual merge process. -Arch dude 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone add a section describing the difference between the functions of a multi core processor and hyper-threading? How are they different? Can a multi core processor have hyper threading?
This article begins with "A multi-core CPU (or chip-level multiprocessor, CMP) combines two or more independent cores", but doesn't mention what is a core. The page core doesn't help either. We cannot assume that the reader is a computer science student. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)