Why are cores favored to frequency?

[Lord Szechenyi]

AKA why don't we see single core cpus at 100 Ghz.

[Ankh Tech]

2 minutes ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

AKA why don't we see single core cpus at 100 Ghz.

Because web browsing uses a core, let alone gaming and video editing, and that is impossible, wait a century or two for that

[Lord Szechenyi]

Just now, Ankh tech tips said:

Because web browsing uses a core, let alone gaming and video editing, and that is impossible, wait a century or two for that

that does not answer my question in any way.

Multitasking has been around for WAAAAAAY longer than you think.

I mean the commodore amiga is the first (mainstream) pc to do it and it had a motorola cpu!

AKA no it's not "necessary" to have more cores rather than higher clock frequency.

[Ankh Tech]

Just now, Lord Szechenyi said:

that does not answer my question in any way.

Multitasking has been around for WAAAAAAY longer than you think.

I mean the commodore amiga is the first (mainstream) pc to do it and it had a motorola cpu!

AKA no it's not "necessary" to have more cores rather than higher clock frequency.

Because more cores are faster for multi-core tasks, give a 8k render to a core 2 duo and time it, and clock isn't everything, like what amd did, IPC is also important

[minibois]

7 minutes ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

AKA why don't we see single core cpus at 100 Ghz.

If they were able to do that, they probably would've done that by now.

Relying on more cores and parallelization is much more realistic.

 

Plus frequency isn't everything, IPC is also important.

I would rather have a gradual move up in performance, rather than "AMD FX 9590"-style high frequency chips which actually perform worse than "lower frequency" chips.

[Ankh Tech]

Just now, minibois said:

If they were able to do that, they probably would've done that by now.

Relying on more cores and parallelization is much more realistic.

 

Plus frequency isn't everything, IPC is also important.

I would rather have a gradual move up in performance, rather than "AMD FX 9590"-style high frequency chips which actually perform worse than "lower frequency" chips.

lol, was just thinking of that

[Lord Szechenyi]

3 minutes ago, Ankh tech tips said:

Because more cores are faster for multi-core tasks, give a 8k render to a core 2 duo and time it, and clock isn't everything, like what amd did, IPC is also important

yes but dumb dumb, why are there multi core tasks?

BECAUSE IT'S THE FUCKING SOFTWARE DESIGNED AROUND IT

otherwise it wouldn't matter (come to think of it a lot of applications don't need many cores (i mean what game needs 20 cores))

[Lord Szechenyi]

7 minutes ago, minibois said:

If they were able to do that, they probably would've done that by now.

Relying on more cores and parallelization is much more realistic.

 

Plus frequency isn't everything, IPC is also important.

I would rather have a gradual move up in performance, rather than "AMD FX 9590"-style high frequency chips which actually perform worse than "lower frequency" chips.

What is IPC?

[Ankh Tech]

2 minutes ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

yes but dumb dumb, why are there multi core tasks?

BECAUSE IT'S THE FUCKING SOFTWARE DESIGNED AROUND IT

otherwise it wouldn't matter (come to think of it a lot of applications don't need many cores (i mean what game needs 20 cores))

Well, if you can stand staying 1 hour rendering a frame, then design your own 1 core video editor

[Tan3l6]

1 minute ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

What is IPC?

The second one - instructions per clock/cycle

[minibois]

Just now, Lord Szechenyi said:

What is IPC?

Instructions per clock/cycle. The amount of tasks that can be completed per Hz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_cycle

[Ankh Tech]

Just now, Lord Szechenyi said:

What is IPC?

Instructions per cycle, a core with 2mhz and 1 ipc is the same as a core with 100mhz and 2 ipc

[Lord Szechenyi]

Just now, Ankh tech tips said:

Well, if you can stand staying 1 hour rendering a frame, then design your own 1 core video editor

I'm speechless...

Imagine that, when multi core cpus didn't exist, back in 90s and early 2000s, they used non multi core programs that rendered the frames for them.

and now imagine a world where after 2002 multi core cpus never existed and instead we got to 10-20 ghz clock speed and they created software that used this, making the rendering time just as much as today with the multi core cpus.

[Teddy07]

because the higher the frequencies goes the more power is required to achieve the same Mhz increase. It also creations a heat problem in addition. It is therefore easier to add more cores at relatively low fequencies instead of pushing the core frequency. Think about mobile devices too!

 

 

[Lord Szechenyi]

11 minutes ago, minibois said:

If they were able to do that, they probably would've done that by now.

So is this like intel not going lower than 14nm?

since they got to around 5ghz and they (both intel and amd) went "Fuck, we can't figure out how to make higher frequency, i guess we'll gonna make cores then"

[Ankh Tech]

Just now, Lord Szechenyi said:

I'm speechless...

Imagine that, when multi core cpus didn't exist, back in 90s and early 2000s, they used non multi core programs that rendered the frames for them.

and now imagine a world where after 2002 multi core cpus never existed and instead we got to 10-20 ghz clock speed and they created software that used this, making the rendering time just as much as today with the multi core cpus.

well, now we have more cores then we might as well use them, would you rather use 1 slow core, or 20 extremely fast cores, I get your point, but it doesn't make sense

[Lord Szechenyi]

1 minute ago, Teddy07 said:

because the higher the frequencies goes the more power is required to achieve the same Mhz increase. It also creations a heat problem in addition. It is therefore easier to add more cores at relatively low fequencies instead of pushing the core frequency. Think about mobile devices too!

 

 

but if i use all cores of a (for example) 64 core cpu won't that also create heat problems?

my question is AKA why don't multi core cpus have any heat problems (mostly)?

[Ankh Tech]

Just now, Lord Szechenyi said:

So is this like intel not going lower than 14nm?

since they got to around 5ghz and they (both intel and amd) went "Fuck, we can't figure out how to make higher frequency, i guess we'll gonna make cores then"

kind of, but they don't give up, which is why we keep getting faster clocks, but intel is still 14nm

[Lord Szechenyi]

1 minute ago, Ankh tech tips said:

well, now we have more cores then we might as well use them, would you rather use 1 slow core, or 20 extremely fast cores, I get your point, but it doesn't make sense

The point is, you are not answering my question.

my point is why did we switch to making more cores/threads to cpus rather than increase the frequency speed.

i'm not talking about now in 2020, but back in 2005 (Pentium d) when they made the first dual core cpu.

[Ankh Tech]

1 minute ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

but if i use all cores of a (for example) 64 core cpu won't that also create heat problems?

my question is AKA why don't multi core cpus have any heat problems (mostly)?

Yes but not as much as a higher clock, so basically 64 pieces of ice output less heat than one steaming, but 64 ice cubes steaming output more heat than 1 steaming, so they have really low clocks

[minibois]

1 minute ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

So is this like intel not going lower than 14nm?

since they got to around 5ghz and they (both intel and amd) went "Fuck, we can't figure out how to make higher frequency, i guess we'll gonna make cores then"

You're simplifying this too much. Frequency isn't all that matters.

It's like saying "the wheels on this car can do 5000RPM!!", without mentioning it's a very small wheel, where the RPM combined with the wheel's size actually result in very little actual speed.

[Ankh Tech]

2 minutes ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

The point is, you are not answering my question.

my point is why did we switch to making more cores/threads to cpus rather than increase the frequency speed.

i'm not talking about now in 2020, but back in 2005 (Pentium d) when they made the first dual core cpu.

Because back then that core clock was the max they could reach, so they started adding more cores, as soon as they figured that out, and since now they can do both they do both, that is why we get 10 core cpus with 5.3ghz boost clock

[Ankh Tech]

1 minute ago, minibois said:

You're simplifying this too much. Frequency isn't all that matters.

It's like saying "the wheels on this car can do 5000RPM!!", without mentioning it's a very small wheel, where the RPM combined with the wheel's size actually result in very little actual speed.

Exactly, like I said, 1 core with 200mhz but 1 ipc is the same as 100mhz with 2 ipc

[jaslion]

1 minute ago, Lord Szechenyi said:

The point is, you are not answering my question.

my point is why did we switch to making more cores/threads to cpus rather than increase the frequency speed.

i'm not talking about now in 2020, but back in 2005 (Pentium d) when they made the first dual core cpu.

Well the plan was to go for the pentium 4 to go to 4ghz+ but they couldn't do it due to thermal issues and well physics really. Amd was having the same issue. Their cpu's were far lower clocked but better than intels offerings but they also only could get them to clock so high. So they did the next best thing. Parallelization aka multi core design. Because if 1 core is at it's max possible limits it can get why not just stick 2 on one cpu and go from there.

 

You can only go so far with a single core and before they hit the wall with single cores their plan was to just keep going single core and that was it. But the wall was hit and now it's all about multi core design as that is scaleable.

[Ankh Tech]

1 minute ago, jaslion said:

Well the plan was to go for the pentium 4 to go to 4ghz+ but they couldn't do it due to thermal issues and well physics really. Amd was having the same issue. Their cpu's were far lower clocked but better than intels offerings but they also only could get them to clock so high. So they did the next best thing. Parallelization aka multi core design. Because if 1 core is at it's max possible limits it can get why not just stick 2 on one cpu and go from there.

 

You can only go so far with a single core and before they hit the wall with single cores their plan was to just keep going single core and that was it. But the wall was hit and now it's all about multi core design as that is scaleable.

Yes and to even reach 5gz core clock, you'll need the highest quality silicon ever, so maybe wait a long time before that