http://www.techpowerup.com/102445/AMD_Demos_48-core__Magny-Corus__System_Details_Architecture.html

ummm.....wow....time to start saving $$ for a new build, I think.

Guess he wanted to upgrade for Age of Conan.

and people wonder why all the computer scientists were spending so much time on scalable multi-core algorithms.

Meh that article was all jibberish to me, anyone wanna give me a run down? (besides they stacked 12 proccesors togeather)

basically; 2010 AMD is looking to take the front runner for server architecture with 12 core processors...

If you stick 4 12 core into one computer.. you get 48 cores... and thats what they are showing off.

That's all well and good, but the average person with a computer uses it to run applications. Everyone here uses a computer to play game applications to some extent.

You're lucky if your game engine optimizes to even use 2 of your 4 cores on a quad-core. Most games I play have issues optimizing on my dual core. Back when I played Age of Conan.. "The Big Technical Wonder", the game couldn't use both my cores. It would just stop using two and revert to one.

Same goes for RAM.. I feel cheated. I bought more RAM a while back, and upgraded to a x64 OS ditched page filing my HDD in the name of fast gaming baby. Guess what? Most games don't even utilize x64 architecture, they just leave it at 32 so you're stuck with the game using 2gb if you're lucky. Even if the game needs more to run better, it can't... it just stops.

This is all a side-effect of console gaming, in my opinion. Consoles need to step-up.

Edit: Yes, it's definitely good for servers though, that's a plus.

Originally posted by aeroplane22

That's all well and good, but the average person with a computer uses it to run applications. Everyone here uses a computer to play game applications to some extent.

You're lucky if your game engine optimizes to even use 2 of your 4 cores on a quad-core. Most games I play have issues optimizing on my dual core. Back when I played Age of Conan.. "The Big Technical Wonder", the game couldn't use both my cores. It would just stop using two and revert to one.

Same goes for RAM.. I feel cheated. I bought more RAM a while back, and upgraded to a x64 OS ditched page filing my HDD in the name of fast gaming baby. Guess what? Most games don't even utilize x64 architecture, they just leave it at 32 so you're stuck with the game using 2gb if you're lucky. Even if the game needs more to run better, it can't... it just stops.

This is all a side-effect of console gaming, in my opinion. Consoles need to step-up.

Edit: Yes, it's definitely good for servers though, that's a plus.

Intresting, I didn't know that most games only used 1-2 cores...

So for someone (probably you) who knows WAY more about comps....

I'm looking at buying a 4core 3.2GHz 8gigRam comp with 1.5 terrabyts. But in effect it'll run my games like a 2core 3.2Ghz 2 gig ram machines?

8 gigs will be good either way, because you still need to run applications in the background. Whether you go quad core or dual core is up to you really. If you're planning on keeping that set-up for a long time, then probably go with quad-core, just based on the assumption that games will eventually start utilizing this technology to the fullest.. but maybe not.

Quad-Cores and fast Dual-Cores are on the even keel with prices now anyway, not so much a couple years back.

I was just saying that, even though we have all this grand technology, all games come up short in utilizing it. Usually for the sake of limiting their tech goals due to launching it on consoles as well. Consoles are great, but they're effecting the PC market big time.

Yeah I understand what you where sayin.

Meh I just wanted to know if I was wasting my money, Anyways thanks for the info.

It's actually starting to change now, finally, with more and more games requiring dual core processors, and really taking advantage of quad core. Fallen Earth comes to mind immediately.

Although it is true that current games and apps for the MOST PART don't take advantage of multiple cores...let's not discount the possibility that the potential of almost limitless PC power could take gaming to an entirely new level.

Someone like John Carmack is likely to make such a game..."just because". We're talking about the kind of raw power that could finally give us photo-realistic gaming, in a truely massive, realistic environment.

With 3D display technology finally starting to make a real break out into the consumer market, and motion-control becoming all the rage....this could be the first step in the direction of a truely virtual environment.

So long as they don't just make another wow-clone instead

 man once amd and intel figured out how to get more then one core on a chip they unleashed a whole new era of cores per chip. i remember when i my first quad core chipset it ws under the dream catagory as far as cpu's shit every one has one now... thre going to have to come up with a new word for cores in a cpu because its going to get rediculus to be like i have amd phenomx48 ahaha it would be fun but cooling something like that!!!! i think hardcore computers has a good plan of attack for that... with there completly submerged motherbored in a non-conducting oil they run 3 Nvidia geforce gtx 285s in SLI   within inch of each other! 

The processor is merely what Intel did 3 years ago.  They stuck 2 6-core dies next to each other and called it a 12 core processor.  When it comes to scalability in the server area at an affordable cost, AMD has held this title for years.  So its nothing earth shattering that they got to 12 cores.  The earth shattering thing is they got to 12 cores ahead of schedule.  It means their new architecture could come in 2010 or early 2011.

ahh bull ! ONE CORE IS GOOD ENOUGH.... always has been, always will be. Just get the fastest one. MHZ is where it counts !

Multicores just make extra heat.

except a single core can't get much faster... we have hit the physical limits of electicity.

Once videogame programmers catch up to acadamia... Give is a year or two, and you will start to see system requirements listed via number of cores rather than speed of the core.

There is huuuge research going into re-optimizing all our search algorithms, sorting algorithms and the like for a scalable amount of parallel processes. Single core is already feeling the hurt when it comes to multi-tasking; once the engines catch up (soon) you'll see a big push for these 2,4,8 + core processors.