Intel's V8 platform reviewed: are 8-cores for you?

The idea of running your rig with 8-cores working their magic has already been available in various forms, but Intel is apparently hoping to effectively fire back at AMD's Quad FX with the unveiling of the V8 platform. Reviewers found that flexing the muscles of twin Xeon processors provided speed that was simply unparalleled in several testing scenarios, but for common jobs such as 3D gaming and unzipping gigabytes of data, the setup essentially fell flat on its face. Sure, blasting past competition in SiSoft Sandra XI and POV-Ray 3.7 is admirable, but unless you're looking to whisk away your day crunching AutoCAD and 3D Studio Max (read: working), this V8 isn't likely to be worth the investment. Notably, the reviewers were flabbergasted by the peaks and valleys in performance depending on what application was being critiqued, so be sure and hit the read link for the full skinny if you've got this one tabled on your must-have list.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 8th 2007 7:35PM]

8 core machines will always perform at 1 core speeds for some tasks until the software is written to fully utilize threading and core branching. On that thought, programmers/businesses won't start coding for multi-core machines until they are readily available and their competitors spit out better (faster) products that utilize this. It's a chicken/egg scenario. I'm glad Intel/AMD/IBM are stepping up with multi-core solutions and getting the ball rolling. Let's get those operating systems and applications out the door to fully utilize it now ;)

[paloooz @ Jun 8th 2007 11:26PM]

Yeah, software needs to support multiple processors.

We can call it ... Same-time Many Processors, or SMP for short ...

[futurepastnow @ Jun 8th 2007 11:40PM]

We can call it ... Same-time Many Processors, or SMP for short ...

Or...Symmetric Multiprocessing, which is what SMP actually stands for.

[paloooz @ Jun 9th 2007 1:42AM]

O RLY?

My point was that software has been able to use multiple processors for 30 years. Yes, that's right. 30 years. Sure, one program might not be multi-threaded, but many single threaded programs running at once will work a lot better on multiple processors than on one.

I know what SMP stands for, clearly you were too shallow to detect my sarcasm.

[Standingfast @ Jun 8th 2007 7:35PM]

I'm currently converting DVD's to MPEG-4 AVC for my moms video ipod on my Athlon64 X2. Imagine how much faster I could go with this...

[John Doe @ Jun 8th 2007 8:00PM]

I've got over 500 DVD's that I want to convert over to a HTPC and put up in the attic somewhere. So yah. 8 cores would be pretty damn nice.

[scott @ Jun 8th 2007 8:07PM]

HA Mac Pro did this first!

*runs for cover*

[RyanTV @ Jun 8th 2007 8:08PM]

It's not like any of this is new news. as Andir3.0 pointed out, until software developers start figuring out how to write code that takes advantage of multi-core hardware, you aren't going to see huge performance gains.

we go through cycles like this every few years - first the software guys are waiting for the hardware guys to catch up, then the tables turn and hardware outperforms the software that it runs on. Your system is only going to be as fast as it's slowest component, and currently that happens to be the applications we run on a daily.

[Your Mom @ Jun 8th 2007 8:16PM]

@ scott

Oh, the MAC PRO did it first? You mean "your OTHER PC". Noob

[ATT @ Jun 8th 2007 8:34PM]

that's a quad dualcore ?
correct =)

[kadajawi @ Jun 8th 2007 10:34PM]

Nay, a dual quadcore.

[melloncollie @ Jun 8th 2007 8:35PM]

Does anyone know if AutoCAD, Viz, 3DSMax, or RevIt can fully utilize 8 cores?

[kadajawi @ Jun 8th 2007 10:41PM]

Cinema 4D can use render farms for rendering animations, and you can set 8 render threats even if you don't have that many CPUs, so it definately will support 8 CPUs. Final Renderer which can be used for many 3D apps does the same + you can render one image with many computers, I think someone used Indigo with something like 25 computers, and probably most serious renderers will support 8 or more cores.

[XGM @ Jun 8th 2007 8:48PM]

So to make faster PC's these days, we cram more cores instead of trying to make faster ones. Well this is totally useless since Windows cannot combine the cores together to make 1 fast core, and also that most applications will only use 1 core.

Of course this is good for multi taskers, i have a 8 core Mac Pro, who btw made this first, and 90% of the time i use all 8 of them. (OS X, Maya, Audio editing, Video Editing, Photoshp, Rendering, Video encoding, Server hosting)

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 9:43AM]

Yes, of course, it's totally useless for Windows and totally fantastic for OS X. Listening to people like you, one might get the impression that Apple invented multiprocessing. The reality is they were the last to the party.

Had you read the article you would have found many tests, all Windows-based, that made full use of all 8 cores. Only an idiot believes that Windows can't take of advantage of multiple processors.

[Bosco @ Jun 8th 2007 8:55PM]

The BeOS was a decade too early. By assigning a distinct thread to each window, it forced developers to decompose their apps to a certain level. Users who keep multiple applications or documents open would see a real benefit from having multiple processors. Algorithms that can actually be sped up by multiple threading can be implemented too.

However, the learning curve for developing decent BeOS apps was a little high for the time. I'm not totally sure that today's application developers are ready enough to worry about things like thread safety in everything they do to embrace that kind of model.

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 9:49AM]

BeOS didn't invent threading and wasn't even especially early with it. OS/2 1.0 offered threads and wasn't the first either. BeOS made everything revolve around threads, for whatever that was worth, and it came from ex-Apple people. Without the Apple connection it would have gotten even less of the little attention it got.

The problem was that BeOS was laughably horrible. It booted fast and was responsive, but was unstable and incomplete. It also had an ugly, clunky UI. It had good ideas but deserved its fate.

[Chuckles McGee @ Jun 8th 2007 9:18PM]

It's just a matter of time until more applications can be optimized. If compressed files were always sub-divided into smaller archives, you could have each core tackling the decompression of the smaller archives. Nothing holding back 3D games from taking advantage either.

I know not everything can be done in parallel, but there's a lot we can still do. Hopefully we'll be able to get any intensive task optimized, and most of the unintensive tasks will be carried out just fine by a single core.

[Slvrgun @ Jun 8th 2007 9:29PM]

Is adding more cores the next logical step to increasing computing power, speed, and efficiency? I would have thought there would have been an easier way.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 8th 2007 11:47PM]

Over the years, processors have added more transistors to process more at one time and perform dedicated processes. This is the nature of x86. Instead of adding clock speeds, they create dedicated instructions optimized for special branches of the processors. RISC based processors of the past kept instructions simple, but required more clocks per cycle to keep up with optimized cores like x86. It wasn't unheard of for RISC processors like the old DEC Alpha processors to have 2-3 times the clock speeds of comparable x86 cores. There comes a point when you have to add more cores, or change architectures completely. Processor traces can only get so small and you can only do so much on a single die. *nix and OSX (potentially) are the only systems with the ability to run on multiple platforms by simply changing the kernel. With the heavy reliance of Windows and it having only one kernel (an x86 based) it will be a while before mass adoption of another architecture is achieved. Even today, you have companies trying to come up with designs (like the Power architecture and Cell processor from IBM) to beat some of the inevitable deficiencies in x86. Even AMD branched from x86 a little with the 64-bit processors.

Thanks to the "almighty" monopoly on the desktop, it's going to be a slow transition because a certain company has nothing to lose keeping the same thing going. Even today, with all the multi-core processors and alternatives, the latest OS from said company still remains a single core design.

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 9:53AM]

"Thanks to the "almighty" monopoly on the desktop, it's going to be a slow transition because a certain company has nothing to lose keeping the same thing going. Even today, with all the multi-core processors and alternatives, the latest OS from said company still remains a single core design."

There's going to be NO transition because Intel has proven that there's no advantage to doing so. Also, the NT kernel has always been multiprocessor, so your comment about the OS remaining "a single core design" is complete bullshit. It's OS X's incredibly old BSD-derived core that suffers from "single core"-itis, not Windows.

[Andir3.0 @ Jun 9th 2007 10:42AM]

"Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor."

"If you have a PC with multiple physical CPUs - that is, two or more chips installed on the motherboard - you'll need Windows Vista Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate to take advantage of both CPUs. If you install Vista Home Basic or Home Premium, the OS will only recognize one CPU. That's similar to the way Windows XP works today - if have a dual-CPU machine, you need to install XP Professional to use both CPUs."

http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/2007/03/22/dual-or-quad-core-processors-will-windows-xp-support-both/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=130
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

It's more of a problem with Microsoft shortsightedness (or should I say money grubbing?) that limits the user to only a predefined number of processors. If you want more, you have to pay Microsoft to use these processors. In Unix derivatives, you can have up to 1024 processors using clusters and can fully utilize (in a single system) 32 processors under Intel x86 architecture or 64 under AMD EM64T architecture (Without signing over your life income for licensing. The hardware is going to be expensive enough.)

[T-D @ Jun 8th 2007 10:49PM]

For those of you saying "Mac did it first", no, Mac didn't. Intel's Clovertown quad-core Xeons launched in November, along with various manufacturers' eight-core rackmounts. Mac's Mac Pro didn't come on the scene until this April, a good five months after the introduction of quad-core Xeons.

And as to the hardware itself, meh. It's just a re-badging of existing dual-quadcore xeon hardware.

[Slvrgun @ Jun 9th 2007 12:16AM]

Where are the biological processors?

[John @ Jun 9th 2007 2:17AM]

They're all hiding because they don't want to do any work - they've already learned how to outsmart us.

[Jesse S @ Jun 9th 2007 3:33AM]

It's not just programs, hell, most don't even support 64-bit, let alone multi-cores, but also, Operating systems.

Windows XP and Vista cannot correctly handle more than 2 cores.

I have heard, however, from a friend that works at MS, that Vienna can actually correctly handle multiple cores, like Loonicks or OS X can.

[craig @ Jun 9th 2007 9:55AM]

"Windows XP and Vista cannot correctly handle more than 2 cores."

What foolish source to you use to support that ridiculous statement?

Not that I expect you to comprehend, but please define "correctly".

[Jesse S @ Jun 9th 2007 12:41PM]

Multiple people that work or have worked at Microsoft...Seriously, XP and Vista cannot correctly allocate resources/programs to more than 2 cores, so more than 2 cores is simply not worth it yet on a non-unix platform.

[wingman @ Jun 9th 2007 3:36AM]

Somebody on a cg forum had a mac 8 core and it was beaten in by a dell quad core in After Effects render test. I don't think OS X is optimized to take fully advantage of 8 core. Mac 8 core is NOT worth in price.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?p=4439534#post4439534

[anen @ Jun 10th 2007 3:54AM]

"It's more of a problem with Microsoft shortsightedness"

Yeah, as demonstrated by its marginal market share lead. (note sarcasm)


How often has the average user (their target market) been hampered due to not enough cores to run their multi-threaded apps?


"XP and Vista cannot correctly allocate resources/programs to more than 2 cores"


Actually (Speaking from experience, not hearsay) NT bases Operating systems have done this good since NT 3.51, very good since 4.0, and great since XP/2K3. (Everything 2k and prior has can’t correctly differentiate hyper-threaded and physical cores)


Don't blame the OS for poorly written programs.

A Maximumpc magazine article describing the need for Better Multi-Core Programming said it best.

"For decades, hardware engineers designed faster microprocessors while too many software engineers got lazy and hid their sloppy programming behind the blessings of Moore’s law. Now the programmers aren’t getting a free ride any more."