Dual- and quad-core processors: are there any advantages?
Of course, it is impossible to keep up with technical progress, especially in the field of the latest microprocessor technologies. It seems that quite recently advanced users admired the idea of ​​a dual-core processor, discussed the advantages of parallel processing of the two threads and sniffed contemptuously towards the conservatives, holding on to their little old ones. What are the disadvantages? Can they have such a brilliant architecture?
Indeed, we did not have time to get used to the dual-core systems, tireless manufacturers in an effort to increase sales of new technology shocked us with four cores on a single chip. The marketing race is, of course, a thrilling thing, the sellers have their heads completely blown away, and advertising, like the eternal engine of commerce, clogs our brains to the uttermost daze. And no one thinks about the fact that the "promoted" dual-cores have been working for users for several years now and - guys, the first responses and the results of serious tests appear! And manufacturers by all means are trying to hide from us that they are far from being in favor of technical innovations!
Kernels are in conflict! The cores lack the speed and structures of the exchange protocols, they argue and quarrel with each other, lowering the productivity declared by the manufacturers many times. The existence of two and four cores on one integrated circuit turned out to be as problematic as life, perhaps, in the real world of the fabulous three-headed Snake-Gorynych.
Almost immediately after the appearance of the two-cores, the first alarmed swallows flew. Intel's first dual-core processors were based on the Smithfield core, that is, they were simply two “glued” Prescott stepping cores E0. Between themselves, the nucleus communicated through the system bus with the assistance of an arbitrator.
')
Experts noted in real life a complete lack of positives for Smithfield. The main complaint was the performance level, when in many applications (not optimized for multi-threading) dual-core Smithfield was lost to a single-core Prescott operating at the same clock frequency.
Intel swallowed hurtful tears and embarked on improvements. The Presler core appeared, which houses the two Cedar Mill cores, that is, the Prescott 2M using 65nm technology. Moreover, these were already two independent cores. The dual core got better, but did the problems go away? And the technology has gone up, “cramming” the maximum number of transistors into a unit area ... And so what? Intel Core 2 Duo processors (and not only them!) Contain a lot of errors. P8 is good? Also no! It really “buggy”, instead of double speed of multiplication in x87 mode, giving out half, delaying transitions and cutting off flags. Errors lead to software crashes, OS crashes and even the ability to capture computer control over the network!
CPU makers continue to fight design flaws, driving each team through a series of cruel tests. In particular, updates to the specifications for the Intel Core 2 Duo are constantly updated with new victories, which look quite funny against the background of a mass of defeats. Intel Xeon Quad-Core 5400 and its younger brother Xeon Dual-Core 5100 have 54 officially confirmed defects of a critical level. And even the Itanium 9000 contains 85 bugs in its womb! patches for operating systems and other software. Oh yeah, operating systems ... That's how it all began!
But what are we all about Intel and about Intel ... AMD is no better at it! This article is written on an obsolete already, of course, but quite modern computer with the core Athlon 64 3800+. Previously, the author was a strong supporter of AMD, and his opinion was supported by the impeccable work of conventional processors of the company. But the dual-core - how many problems with it have already been experienced ...! And unfortunately, it never ceases to “delight”.
So - technology technology, but ... The conclusions suggest themselves.
Indeed, we did not have time to get used to the dual-core systems, tireless manufacturers in an effort to increase sales of new technology shocked us with four cores on a single chip. The marketing race is, of course, a thrilling thing, the sellers have their heads completely blown away, and advertising, like the eternal engine of commerce, clogs our brains to the uttermost daze. And no one thinks about the fact that the "promoted" dual-cores have been working for users for several years now and - guys, the first responses and the results of serious tests appear! And manufacturers by all means are trying to hide from us that they are far from being in favor of technical innovations!
Kernels are in conflict! The cores lack the speed and structures of the exchange protocols, they argue and quarrel with each other, lowering the productivity declared by the manufacturers many times. The existence of two and four cores on one integrated circuit turned out to be as problematic as life, perhaps, in the real world of the fabulous three-headed Snake-Gorynych.
Almost immediately after the appearance of the two-cores, the first alarmed swallows flew. Intel's first dual-core processors were based on the Smithfield core, that is, they were simply two “glued” Prescott stepping cores E0. Between themselves, the nucleus communicated through the system bus with the assistance of an arbitrator.
')
Experts noted in real life a complete lack of positives for Smithfield. The main complaint was the performance level, when in many applications (not optimized for multi-threading) dual-core Smithfield was lost to a single-core Prescott operating at the same clock frequency.
Intel swallowed hurtful tears and embarked on improvements. The Presler core appeared, which houses the two Cedar Mill cores, that is, the Prescott 2M using 65nm technology. Moreover, these were already two independent cores. The dual core got better, but did the problems go away? And the technology has gone up, “cramming” the maximum number of transistors into a unit area ... And so what? Intel Core 2 Duo processors (and not only them!) Contain a lot of errors. P8 is good? Also no! It really “buggy”, instead of double speed of multiplication in x87 mode, giving out half, delaying transitions and cutting off flags. Errors lead to software crashes, OS crashes and even the ability to capture computer control over the network!
CPU makers continue to fight design flaws, driving each team through a series of cruel tests. In particular, updates to the specifications for the Intel Core 2 Duo are constantly updated with new victories, which look quite funny against the background of a mass of defeats. Intel Xeon Quad-Core 5400 and its younger brother Xeon Dual-Core 5100 have 54 officially confirmed defects of a critical level. And even the Itanium 9000 contains 85 bugs in its womb! patches for operating systems and other software. Oh yeah, operating systems ... That's how it all began!
But what are we all about Intel and about Intel ... AMD is no better at it! This article is written on an obsolete already, of course, but quite modern computer with the core Athlon 64 3800+. Previously, the author was a strong supporter of AMD, and his opinion was supported by the impeccable work of conventional processors of the company. But the dual-core - how many problems with it have already been experienced ...! And unfortunately, it never ceases to “delight”.
So - technology technology, but ... The conclusions suggest themselves.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/56836/
All Articles