Intel Stuffing More Than 8 Cores Into Westmere-EX

[rhino13]

Oh snap! I did not see that coming!

 

[gfg]

[citation][nom]pdbigt357[/nom]Can someone please do a piece on parallel processing and its future? Why can't anyone else see that this is a waste of money to continue to through cores together. The technology in multi-core processors doesn't appear to be improving much, only the company's ability to put them on the same die.[/citation]

For a company that has multiple virtual machines with hundreds of users online, this technology is the solution to problems of processing power, space, power consumption, etc.
For one normal user a 4 cores is more than enough today.
The development of applications with support for parallel processing (non-industrial applications or large scale) is still asleep, and it is difficult to awaken. There are other ways to get better performance as GPGPU, but the gpu arquietectura is difficult to support a simple and sustainable way of development.
I think that until the gpu and cpu do not reach a similar architecture or fusion of them, processing curve will have a growth rate not very pronounced.

sorry if do not understand much, English is not my native language jeje!!

 

[insider3]

[citation][nom]Norwood06[/nom]Impressive and all, but is there really a large demand for for a 12 core chip? Or will Intel continue to rely on Dell & Best Buy to convince consumers they need multiple cores to multitask explorer and outlook?[/citation]

You sir are retarded. Just thought I'd point that out

 

[adis]

I totally agree.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]It's double underlined on both IE and Opera, on two different machines, on my end.[/citation]

Thanks to adblock plus and noscript, no underlines for me! Those things are totally uber-annoying especially on sites like this where content authors might actually want to hyperlink you to something useful.

 

[zaznet]

[citation][nom]Norwood06[/nom]will Intel continue to rely on Dell & Best Buy to convince consumers[/citation]

The Xeon line is for your data center servers and not typical in desktop systems. It is often under-clocked for improved stability and reduced cooling consumption.


[citation][nom]GFG[/nom]For a company that has multiple virtual machines with hundreds of users online, this technology is the solution to problems of processing power, space, power consumption, etc.
[/citation]

This is exactly the market these chips will be best suited for. All our current virtual hosts are 16 cores total (multiple CPU with multiple core) and were stood up 3 years ago. The only bottleneck going to a 12+ core per chip system would be memory per system so that it stays within our current CPU to RAM ratio or increases on the RAM side.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]GFG[/nom]For a company that has multiple virtual machines with hundreds of users online, this technology is the solution to problems of processing power, space, power consumption, etc.For one normal user a 4 cores is more than enough today.The development of applications with support for parallel processing (non-industrial applications or large scale) is still asleep, and it is difficult to awaken. There are other ways to get better performance as GPGPU, but the gpu arquietectura is difficult to support a simple and sustainable way of development.I think that until the gpu and cpu do not reach a similar architecture or fusion of them, processing curve will have a growth rate not very pronounced.sorry if do not understand much, English is not my native language jeje!![/citation]

You hit the nail on the head. More efficient, better connected cores are the thing to have given the trend of cloud computing, software as a service, etc. Being able to virtually provision one physical server 12 different ways per chip is amazing. Just imagine what a web site experience will be like with a CPU or two on the server end, dedicated to your will alone. Searches get faster, more detailed, and more interactive. Facebook gets, er, face-ier. Online multimedia like picture and video sharing will be much more personalized (for better or worse). The possibilities are endless.

 

[rooket]

They need to do more work on the shared memory architecture on pc's. More cores? how about we stuff 100 cores in. it still won't improve much of anything.

an 8 core cpu will run starcraft2 just as well as a 2 core cpu.... feh.. I'll just hang onto my money.

 

[huron]

[citation][nom]rooket[/nom]They need to do more work on the shared memory architecture on pc's. More cores? how about we stuff 100 cores in. it still won't improve much of anything.an 8 core cpu will run starcraft2 just as well as a 2 core cpu.... feh.. I'll just hang onto my money.[/citation]

Seriously...they are talking about server chips and the use in the enterprise. While some of this tech does trickle down to the desktop and gaming market, this is not intended for Starcraft2.

 

[christop]

Nice!!!!!

 

[Houndsteeth]

[citation][nom]rhino13[/nom]Oh snap! I did not see that coming![/citation]
If 100% uptime is your mission, then you design multi-hosted VMs to failover to hardware that is running when the host hardware that the VM is running on fails. While I haven't done this personally, almost every hypervisor has migration options for hosted VMs, and if they don't, and someone else's does, then you can bet that they are working on it. Ah the power of competition!

 

[CaptainBib]

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Intel is falling behind amd has quad 12 core socket boards already out you can buy them and they are going to have a 16 core out in about 11 months.They also have single socket that is affordable board is $500, 12 core is $1200.I plan on building one for 3d animation rendering station this summer.[/citation]

AMD cannot compete with intel, in most applications, in the server or desktop markets. Their newest 6-core CPU can match Intel's 2-year old quad core i7s.

In the Server market, AMD is relegated to low-use servers; while intel gets the mission critical and highest tiers.

It is AMD that is falling behind Intel, on efficiency, performance, and market share.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Intel is falling behind amd has quad 12 core socket boards already out you can buy them and they are going to have a 16 core out in about 11 months.They also have single socket that is affordable board is $500, 12 core is $1200.I plan on building one for 3d animation rendering station this summer.[/citation]

Yea thats great. Problem is that that same 12 core CPU barley edges out Intels 6 core CPU and Intels 8 core really beats its pants off. So while it is cheap, its performance is lower and for you it will be fine but for servers, it wont.

 

[thejerk]

Someone call Hell and check the temperature. Intel is releasing a new processor on a die shrink and not changing the socket.

 

[eddieroolz]

I wouldn't mind a "donation" of a server motherboard alongside four of these 😉

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]GFG[/nom]not long ago with 24 cores (4 sockets) xeon 7400 series was impressive.now in the near future 24 logical cores on a single processor, again Wou![/citation]

take a look at modern day graphics cards, i believe that they have between 50-1000 plus processing cores. I love parallel computing, i just wish that intel will take note from AMd(Ati) and nVidia

 

[victomofreality]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Server chip! SERVER CHIP!! It's the third word in the article, and it's double underlined. I suggest the following strategy when making a comment: Read the article (or at least the first paragraph) (or at least the first sentence!) (or at least the beginning of the first sentence!!)People read the comments to find out additional information, not to see how bad your reading comprehension is...[/citation]

The double underline is an add that appears randomly in the articles so while it is there on your screen it might not be on others but I agree people need to READ the article before the comment on the article.

 

[lauxenburg]

Too bad AMD already has 8 core Opterons...

 

[kronos_cornelius]

I know these are for servers, but I disagree about the point that we don't need more CPU power. We don't need more CPU power for today's software. But there are software products that cannot exists because there is not enough computational power today. Right out of the top of my head I would suggest multi-purpose machine vision and natural language recognition. Semantic searches. Also, vector-graphics could be an option with more computer power. But the most important, is that killer application that none of us could foresee today.

 

[drowned]

This may be a stupid comment, but wouldn't this fit less in the server market and more into the high performance computing market? I'm kinda sorta thinking that servers would much more benefit from faster hdd's and network connections than a fast cpu, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[techguy911]

[citation][nom]CaptainBib[/nom]AMD cannot compete with intel, in most applications, in the server or desktop markets. Their newest 6-core CPU can match Intel's 2-year old quad core i7s.In the Server market, AMD is relegated to low-use servers; while intel gets the mission critical and highest tiers.It is AMD that is falling behind Intel, on efficiency, performance, and market share.[/citation]

Really? how do you explain this then?.