Kind of a n00bish Question but here we go! Why multiple Core Processors?

The space where you put in a topic's title is not enough to fully elaborate my question so let me do so for starters.Why have processor manufacturers/developers pushed the development of better computer processor technology towards the multiple processor direction? Is it because developing a single core that goes faster than 3.5Ghz is way difficult?I put out the 3.5ghz value as I've noticed that even on most newer multiple core processors the uppermost Ghz limit seems to be at around 3 to 3.5Ghz.Oh & my understanding of how multiple cores may be incorrect, but does it work like this? For example a dual core processor that has 3Ghz as its frequency, does the frequency add up like this 3Ghz x two cores = 6Ghz? Or does the frequency remain as 3Ghz but the work load is shared between the two cores?And yeah, sorry for the n00bishness even though I've been on these forums for some time now ::)

Hmm. I'm definitely no expert on this matter, but from my understanding, there's multiple processor chips.I like to think of this like forced induction on a car.Two smaller turbos make the car go much faster than just one big one. The larger the turbo, the longer the lag, but if you have two smaller ones, you get a faster pickup with the same high powerband as the big one.I'm guessing that the higher frequencies, 5-6 GHz, on processors are less efficient than the current frequencies.

Replying to #2

So I guess the proverbial "Two heads are better than one" & "there is no I in team" sayings can apply to technology as well.Thanks insanecrazy :)

The benefit of having multiple processors is that the system can handle more than one thread. Each processor can handle a separate stream of data. This greatly increases the performance of a system that is running concurrent applications such as a server.

Cahos Rahne Veloza · #1The space where you put in a topic's title is not enough to fully elaborate my question so let me do so for starters.Why have processor manufacturers/developers pushed the development of better computer processor technology towards the multiple processor direction? Is it because developing a single core that goes faster than 3.5Ghz is way difficult?

The amount of heat generated by the resistance on the CPU tends to become prohibitive as speeds hit around the 3.5GHz mark. Without specialised cooling equipment to mitigate this, it's actually not worth the risk. Instead, you just add more cores to the chip so more data can be handled simultaneously.

Cahos Rahne Veloza · #1Oh & my understanding of how multiple cores may be incorrect, but does it work like this? For example a dual core processor that has 3Ghz as its frequency, does the frequency add up like this 3Ghz x two cores = 6Ghz? Or does the frequency remain as 3Ghz but the work load is shared between the two cores?

No. Consider it as a pipeline where CPU speed is the maximum speed of the water (data) flowing down the pipe. You can't increase it past the maximum speed, but by doubling the size of the pipe (making it thicker, analogous to adding another core) you can get more water going through at that same pressure.Essentially, more data is being processed at the same speed. The instructions are still being read at 3GHz, but there are twice as many being read simultaneously. As SomeIrishKid says, this works best for running multiple applications or those few applications which find use out of using multiple cores. With that in mind, more cores is not always best, and they're not the be-all end-all of CPU architecture. Most users will not need an octo-core processor because they just don't run enough to make it worthwhile. I'd much prefer more cache in a quad-core than buying myself a hex-core.

Replying to #5

Pretty much this. An analogy I like to use is animation, which is a sequence of still images. Imagine it takes a 1ghz single core processor 1 second to render one image (called a frame).a 2.0ghz processor is twice the speed, so it can render two frames each second.
a 3.0ghz processor is three times the speed, so it can render 3 frames each second.Now let us take our 2.0ghz processor and start adding coresa single core 2.0ghz processor can render 2 frames each second
a dual core 2.0ghz processor can render 4 frames each second
a quad core 2.0ghz processor can render 8 frames each second
an octocore 2.0ghz processor can render 16 frames each second.etc. each core is still only processing 2 frames each second, but the job gets done considerably quicker by having more cores, and the speed gain is greater than just jacking up the clock speed.Undoubtedly SMP (multiprocessor) aware applications will become more and more common in the near future, as cpu manufacturer's focus has shifted from clock speed to core counts, for reasons explained by suiseiseki. We're possibly going to be reaching a point where moores law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law) will no longer be true.

Thanks for the various explanations & analogies fellas they really helped a lot in illustrating the benefits multiple core processors have to offer :)So the next question now then is, how many cores will be the limit?I've read of Quadcores & AMD seems to also have a triple core processor & just a post above loony is speaking of an octocore processor. Would it be safe to assume that the number of multiple core processors can go up exponentially maybe to a point where such a thing as a 100 core processor might come about?

AMD have a 16 core processor out now. Thats as high as it currently goes. The limit is down to how much they can miniaturise the individual cores.

16 cores :oMan that's beastly!

Replying to #9

they're 4 way, which means they're designed to work with 4 separate chips in the computer, in other words, 64 cores.

I always thought that the more processor you have the hotter it gets inside that cpu.
I hope I'm wrong with that.

Replying to #11

its a bit more complex than that.

I know that the motherboard also produces heat, like the ram, video card cause it holds all the electrical parts, but what is the real culprit producing the most heat?Also, going back to topic, I was trying to help my co-worker with choosing a laptop. He liked an Intel processor cause AMD was given bad rep at work due to rumors of melting and breaking. So, we looked at 2 intel laptop. One was a Intel pentium and the other a celeron. both are dual core.
The sales guy said that the celeron is more powerful than the pentium but i disagreed. So, i'm now confused, which is more powerful a pentium or celeron?

celerons are the cheap cut down processors. Also it's usually intel processors that melt, not AMD. I ran an AMD athlon x2 with no cpu fan for half an hour with no noticeable temperature increase (admittedly it had a very good aftermarket heatsink), while I've seen intel processors burst into flames as soon as the cooler was removed during operation. Additionally my highschool principal had his P4 laptop melt on him.Unless the pentium and the celeron are from different eras, it is very unlikely the celeron is more powerful.

From my memory of past laptops. I know that celeron was really made for laptops while pentiums where made for desktop. So i concluded that if you put a pc-made processor and converted it to be used on a laptop, then it will tremendously will be better than a laptop-made processor.

Replying to #15

that isnt completely true, as both processors have 'mobile' variants designed for laptops. The celerons are designed to be cheaper to reduce PC manufacturing costs at the lower end of the market, and so they are inherently less powerful. This can benefit laptops because they might consume less power and produce less heat than the pentiums, although this is not always the case. I have a 1.6Ghz celeron that produces a ridiculous amount of heat, unbelievable that intel tried to sell it as a passively cooled system.

Loonylion · #10they're 4 way, which means they're designed to work with 4 separate chips in the computer, in other words, 64 cores.

Holy crap 64 cores!This processor is probably not geared towards the novice &/or casual computer user.

Replying to #17

no its a server processor. they cost upwards of $540 each, but when it comes to rendering, they really shine.

Replying to #18

Sounds like you worked with one before....

Replying to #19

All my desktops are multiprocessor in some shape or form. I have a dual processor athlon from before multicore (and even HT) were invented, as well as a system with two quad core opteron processors.