32-Core Processors: Intel Reaches For (The) Sun

MrsD

Distinguished
Feb 22, 2006
480
0
18,780
0
Yes we read it too. Thanks of reposting it though :roll:

Does it seem so impressive? Even though 10 years ago we were all dreaming of a processor that could do the unthinkable feat.....reach 1 ghz 8O
 

DaBigHurt

Distinguished
May 21, 2006
169
0
18,680
0
Performance gains of X16 is whats most impressive in only 3 1/2 years. I think thats what the article was meant to imply. Well all know that technology tends to double each time out, but its happening in half the time. Kewl. :D
 

Whizzard9992

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2006
1,076
0
19,280
0
Yes we read it too. Thanks of reposting it though :roll:
It's not a re-post. This is the official discussion, linked to the article. There's a link at the bottom of the first page (I thought you read it? ;))

At the same time, we've heard rumors that the project might already [be] dead.
Yeah just a little edit ;)

The second bottleneck is the system's main memory. It is not a part of the processor, but resides in the chipset northbridge on the motherboard.
The memory doesn't reside on the northbridge, per se. The controller resides on the northbridge. The memory resides on JDEC DIMMs. Just nitpicking, I know :)

The key for these wet dreams is a modular design approach that is based on eight processing nodes, each carrying a common 3 MB L2 cache (24 MB total) and four processor cores with 512 kB shared L2 cache.
From Wikipedia- "Wet Dream": A nocturnal emission is an ejaculation of semen experienced during sleep.

Kind of an off-color comment, I thought.
 

lcdguy

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
255
0
18,780
0
they already have 32+ computing, google: Blade Server :D j/k

ya if these ever do come to fruition i can't imagine the power requirements for 32 cores even if they were only 25 watts each, thats still a chip eating up 800 watts of power. to be feasible each core couldn't use more than 4 watts.
 

caamsa

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,830
0
19,810
13
When are they going to come up with the technology to tap the power of the human brain :?: That would be cool to turn your brain into the ultimate gaming machine :!: Of course all those smart people would have the best systems. :D
 

lcdguy

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
255
0
18,780
0
When are they going to come up with the technology to tap the power of the human brain :?: That would be cool to turn your brain into the ultimate gaming machine :!: Of course all those smart people would have the best systems. :D
most people's brains are the same, just they are utilized differently, unless you have some sort of neural disorder. (like me)
 

Multiplectic

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2006
1,029
0
19,280
0
Intel is going berserk! What are they doing?? 8O
Like lcdguy said, each core shouldn't use more than 3-4W to keep the TDP within a normal range.
Besides, each node (4 cores with 512K L2) is ~25 mm2. Multiply that by 8 and add the 24MB cache... Isn't that too big for a die??
 
If the goal is to have the most cores, then great. However, my goal is to have the best performance. I don't see how software is going to use 32 threads at once. I think dual-core is a good fit now, I think quad-core is perhaps overkill, 16 and 32 is just insane.

Unless the way software is written radically changes it just doesn't make sense. Why is Intel going from one bad extreme to another? There's a got to be a happy medium!

You can put 1,024 cores on a chip, but what if you are only using 3 or 4 of them, pretty silly I think!

PS - Why is this in the memory category...again...?
 

kornyman

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2006
40
0
18,530
0
I think with the shift in multi core processors become so popular, a lot of programmes will start developing new methods of programming. After all, this is in four years. There's a lot that can happen with both hardware and sofware. Who knows, software might become just as modular as the processors, and be able to have many segements of code split up to different cores. We'll see. If not, then I guess you'll at least have a computer that can game, rip CD's, encode DVD's, play music, make coffee, and 27 other things all at the same time. :)
 

lcdguy

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
255
0
18,780
0
personally i don't see 32 core chips being ecnomically feasible for the home user since dual/quad core will be more than enough. but a 32 core chip would greatly decrese the overhead for servers. for example with a quad 32 core chip server you would have 128 cores to run your server app in one server box. :D
 

DrBlofeld

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2006
200
0
18,680
0
If the goal is to have the most cores, then great. However, my goal is to have the best performance. I don't see how software is going to use 32 threads at once.

You can put 1,024 cores on a chip, but what if you are only using 3 or 4 of them, pretty silly I think!
The article is about CPUs for a server environment. They can easily use 32 threads at once. :roll:
 

shawnpaul3

Distinguished
May 31, 2006
125
0
18,680
0
If the goal is to have the most cores, then great. However, my goal is to have the best performance. I don't see how software is going to use 32 threads at once.

You can put 1,024 cores on a chip, but what if you are only using 3 or 4 of them, pretty silly I think!
The article is about CPUs for a server environment. They can easily use 32 threads at once. :roll:

Aren't the extra cores required for transporter technology? What type of processors does the Enterprise use? Speaking of which, what about the warp drive? I'm sure it needs the extra cores. :lol:
 

wolfman140

Distinguished
Jun 6, 2006
297
0
18,780
0
Aye, this idea will only be usable by servers and/or real process crunching programs (IE, graphics/movie rendering and effects, HD video rendering, etc.) Thats all great for them, but for the home use, I don't see MUCH use. But again, this is what everyone said when the Wright brothers wanted to fly. So...we'll see what happens, if a 32 core chip comes out, is affordable, and shows performance gains, SIGN ME UP! If it doesn't no big deal, I'll just stick with a quad core longer is all.
 

mralex

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2006
3
0
18,510
0
If the goal is to have the most cores, then great. However, my goal is to have the best performance. I don't see how software is going to use 32 threads at once. I think dual-core is a good fit now, I think quad-core is perhaps overkill, 16 and 32 is just insane.

Unless the way software is written radically changes it just doesn't make sense. Why is Intel going from one bad extreme to another? There's a got to be a happy medium!

You can put 1,024 cores on a chip, but what if you are only using 3 or 4 of them, pretty silly I think!

PS - Why is this in the memory category...again...?
This is not silly at all and it makes a lot of sense.
All of these are for servers and server apps are highly multi-threaded.
They are not meant for you to only browse Internet at home.

The current Niagara has 8-core 32-thread, while the upcoming Niagara 2 has 8-core 64-thread.
They perform extremely well when handling tens of requests at the same time.
Go to eBay.com and you can see it is powered by Sun.
I wonder what Google is using.

I agree with Heyyou27. Sun is already selling 8-core 32-thread machines.
Will this 32-core be cutting-edge in 2010?
 

lcdguy

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2006
255
0
18,780
0
well imagine this for a rendering farm / calculation farm

a balde setup with 8 way server boards you could compress an incredible amount of computer into a very small space :D
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
3,441
0
20,780
0
The key for these wet dreams is
I agree, very inappropriate and unprofessional sexual comment for an article about computers. This should be removed.

I think the term 'wet dream' has moved more into common vernacular over the years and has come to be accepted under the more colloquial meaning of 'something that is really good'. When reading the article, the term didn't stand out as out of place to me at all.
 

enewmen

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2005
2,223
0
19,810
5
Multi-core programming IS in the works. Lots of people knew this coming for a long time.
Some info HERE
So yes, there will be software that can actually use more than 2 cores.
The trick is about unblocking the other 31 cpus for threads, then just add threads without worrying about locking and syncing.
It just won't happen easily right now.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY