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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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?

 

16 cores

Man that's beastly!

 

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

 

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.

 

Holy crap 64 cores!

This processor is probably not geared towards the novice &/or casual computer user.

 

Sounds like you worked with one before....