Intel Demos Single Chip with 48 Cores

[rebturtle]

I can run 3 WU's of every BOINC project simultaneously! Sign me up!!

 

[tacoslave]

[citation][nom]gekko668[/nom]AMD where art thou?[/citation]


pwning nvidia right now.

 

[christop]

VERY COOL..But will cost a ton of money.. What home user needs 48 cores. We haven't mastered 4 cores in software.. This would be great for servers..

 

[lejay]

[citation][nom]vaskodogama[/nom]wow! finally some real A.I. soon? huh! not 2 years soon, at least 10-15 years.[/citation]
Yeah, I have this great code for real A.I., I just need a slightly faster computer to run it.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

OMG, 48 cores. We might actually have a purpose for 64-bit OS's, yet. Immediately what comes to mind is gaming servers which would benefit. If you had a computer with one of these chips in it and you were utilizing every core for CoD4 servers (w/ max players per server), I couldn't even begin to imagine how much RAM would be required. Any guesses on how many servers could be run given this chip and how much memory would be required?

 

[DjEaZy]

... fcuk cores!!! Where is larrabee? Don't they know, that the gpu's are taking over?

 

[eastcoaster]

I love technological progress!!

 

[WINTERLORD]

wondering if this is just a model, or does it actualy work yet?

 

[fonzy]

Xbox 720

 

[FoShizzleDizzle]

Intel still stuck aiming at 48. Maybe one day they will actually aim for something as bold as Tilera's 100 core CPU.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]Before all of you get all excited, those cores are probably much simpler than those currently on the i7s, or even the AMD Phenom IIs. That said this is still pretty interesting, but we'll have to wait and see if anything comes from it, or if it ends up as revolutionary as the Itanium .[/citation]

Poor Itanium. Would have been revolutionary IF AMD didn't bring out x86-64 and stick us with the same old CPU tech thats now almost 30 years old.

In its native enviroment though itanium is a killer. Pure 64bit apps love its abilities. But 32bit hates it.

 

[Hiniberus]

As people have previously stated, there's absolutely no reason to get hyped up over something when for some damn reason OS's are still being done in 32bit, the fact that we need software that can actually use 4 cores is also something to be taken into consideration.

TLDR

Intel basically wasted time and money on something that cannot be used any time soon.

 

[back_by_demand]

There is no way that an industry that has spent the last 20-odd years developing an incremental upgrade path, allowing a chip like this to be released yet. They still have the next 10 years to push out 6, 8, 12 and 16 core chips. And we will buy them.

Great news for discovery and the art of the possible, bad news for supply chain and seeing as Intel is a commercial organisation good luck in getting one over it's supply chain.

 

[buwish]

Quite impressive. I can see it working for server purposes a decade down the road.

 

[ravewulf]

Yay, 48 cores...

Meanwhile graphics processors are more and more being able to do the general computing tasks usually given to CPUs and have processor cores numbering in the hundreds.

Besides, it's not like a lot of software is even taking advantage of 4 cores let alone 48. AND we still have to get on with moving everything to 64 bit.

 

[jsc]

Hmmm. A single chip Beowulf cluster.

 

[thearm]

[citation][nom]winner4455[/nom]First we need to utilize 4 cores.[/citation]

There is a big different in the benchmarking of a two core processor and a four core processor. Even if software applications are not coded to use all four, it's definitively a difference. So, let's not wait for the programmers. Let's keep moving forward.

 

[Ciuy]

yeah, and pigs fly while having a margarita

 

[jcknouse]

Actually, I'd call that chip "cloud killer". Why would an organization pay a cloud provider to host all their information when they can buy the system with 48 Cores, a SAN, etc.

Looks like in-house IT is about to become more cost-effective in the next 3-5 years with the technology.

 

[nforce4max]

Finally something worth buying that is a real upgrade.

 

[ankpat]

check this out
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/2/intel-larrabee-finally-hits-1tflops---27x-faster-than-nvidia-gt200!.aspx
real silicon on pci-e and may be called larrabee

 

[ankpat]

and this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjYuS1J3jI of larrabee demo looks real silicon

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]OMG, 48 cores. We might actually have a purpose for 64-bit OS's, yet. Immediately what comes to mind is gaming servers which would benefit. If you had a computer with one of these chips in it and you were utilizing every core for CoD4 servers (w/ max players per server), I couldn't even begin to imagine how much RAM would be required. Any guesses on how many servers could be run given this chip and how much memory would be required?[/citation]

I bet you are still running Windows XP on a P4 with 2GB of RAM and you consider yourself l33t?

 

[necronic]

[citation][nom]winner4455[/nom]First we need to utilize 4 cores.[/citation]

well said man. The only programs that seem to use cores past 2 are the ones that would be running on servers or high end workstations anyways.

 

[Socnom]

Some researchers believe computers may even be able to read brain waves, so simply thinking about a command, such as dictating words, would happen without speaking.

This may just keep people with ADHD busy for a while. They would finally have something that will keep up with their....OH, shiny!