Two- and four-core processors: are there any advantages?
Of course, keeping up with technological progress, especially in the field of the latest microprocessor technologies, is impossible. It seems that more recently, advanced users admired the idea of a dual-core processor, discussed the benefits of parallel processing of two threads and scornfully snorted towards conservatives holding on to their old proces. What are the disadvantages? How can they have such a brilliant architecture?
Indeed, before we got used to dual-core systems, indefatigable manufacturers, in an effort to increase sales of new technology, dazzled us with four cores on a single chip. The marketing race is, of course, an exciting thing, it completely blows the minds of sellers, and advertising, as the eternal engine of trade, is clogging our brains. And no one thinks that the "untwisted" two-core users have been working with users for several years and - guys, the first responses and the results of serious tests appear! And manufacturers are doing their best to hide from us that they are far from in favor of technical innovations!
The cores are in conflict! The kernels lack the speed and structures of the exchange protocols; they argue and curse with each other, reducing the performance declared by the manufacturers at times. The existence of two and four cores on the same integrated circuit proved to be as problematic as life in the real world of the fabulous three-headed Serpent-Gorynych would be.
Almost immediately after the appearance of the two cores, the first alarmed swallows flew. The first dual-core Intel processors were based on the Smithfield core, that is, they were simply two “glued” Prescott cores of the E0 stepping. The cores communicated among themselves through the system bus with the assistance of the arbiter.
Specialists noted in real life the complete absence of Smithfield's positive aspects. The main complaint was the performance level, when in many applications (not optimized for multithreading) the dual-core Smithfield lost to the single-core Prescott operating at the same clock speed.
Intel swallowed up tearful tears and proceeded with improvements. The Presler core appeared, on which two Cedar Mill cores are placed, that is, the Prescott 2M using 65nm technology. Moreover, these were already two independent cores. The dual core is better, but are the problems gone? And the technology went up, “cramming” the maximum number of transistors per unit area ... So what? Intel Core 2 Duo processors (and not only them!) Contain a lot of errors. Is P8 good? Also no! It really "glitches", instead of double the speed of multiplication in x87 mode, giving out half, delaying transitions and trimming flags. Errors lead to software crashes, OS hangs and even the ability to capture computer control over the network!
CPU manufacturers continue to fight design flaws, driving each team through a series of fierce tests. In particular, the specification updates on the Intel Core 2 Duo are constantly updated with new victories that look funny enough amid a mass of defeats. The Intel Xeon Quad-Core 5400 and its younger brother Xeon Dual-Core 5100 have 54 officially confirmed critical level defects. And even Itanium 9000 contains 85 bugs in its womb! patches for operating systems and other software. Oh yes, operating systems ... It all started with them!
But what are we all about Intel and about Intel ... AMD is not doing any better! This article is written on an outdated, of course, but completely modern computer with an Athlon 64 3800+ core. Previously, the author was an ardent supporter of AMD, and his opinion was supported by the impeccable work of ordinary processors of the company. But the two-core - how many problems have already been experienced with it ...! And, unfortunately, does not cease to "please".
So - technology by technology, but ... Conclusions suggest themselves.
Indeed, before we got used to dual-core systems, indefatigable manufacturers, in an effort to increase sales of new technology, dazzled us with four cores on a single chip. The marketing race is, of course, an exciting thing, it completely blows the minds of sellers, and advertising, as the eternal engine of trade, is clogging our brains. And no one thinks that the "untwisted" two-core users have been working with users for several years and - guys, the first responses and the results of serious tests appear! And manufacturers are doing their best to hide from us that they are far from in favor of technical innovations!
The cores are in conflict! The kernels lack the speed and structures of the exchange protocols; they argue and curse with each other, reducing the performance declared by the manufacturers at times. The existence of two and four cores on the same integrated circuit proved to be as problematic as life in the real world of the fabulous three-headed Serpent-Gorynych would be.
Almost immediately after the appearance of the two cores, the first alarmed swallows flew. The first dual-core Intel processors were based on the Smithfield core, that is, they were simply two “glued” Prescott cores of the E0 stepping. The cores communicated among themselves through the system bus with the assistance of the arbiter.
Specialists noted in real life the complete absence of Smithfield's positive aspects. The main complaint was the performance level, when in many applications (not optimized for multithreading) the dual-core Smithfield lost to the single-core Prescott operating at the same clock speed.
Intel swallowed up tearful tears and proceeded with improvements. The Presler core appeared, on which two Cedar Mill cores are placed, that is, the Prescott 2M using 65nm technology. Moreover, these were already two independent cores. The dual core is better, but are the problems gone? And the technology went up, “cramming” the maximum number of transistors per unit area ... So what? Intel Core 2 Duo processors (and not only them!) Contain a lot of errors. Is P8 good? Also no! It really "glitches", instead of double the speed of multiplication in x87 mode, giving out half, delaying transitions and trimming flags. Errors lead to software crashes, OS hangs and even the ability to capture computer control over the network!
CPU manufacturers continue to fight design flaws, driving each team through a series of fierce tests. In particular, the specification updates on the Intel Core 2 Duo are constantly updated with new victories that look funny enough amid a mass of defeats. The Intel Xeon Quad-Core 5400 and its younger brother Xeon Dual-Core 5100 have 54 officially confirmed critical level defects. And even Itanium 9000 contains 85 bugs in its womb! patches for operating systems and other software. Oh yes, operating systems ... It all started with them!
But what are we all about Intel and about Intel ... AMD is not doing any better! This article is written on an outdated, of course, but completely modern computer with an Athlon 64 3800+ core. Previously, the author was an ardent supporter of AMD, and his opinion was supported by the impeccable work of ordinary processors of the company. But the two-core - how many problems have already been experienced with it ...! And, unfortunately, does not cease to "please".
So - technology by technology, but ... Conclusions suggest themselves.