Intel Talks a Little About 10-core Westmere-EX

[Marcus Yam]

That'd be decacore.

Intel Talks a Little About 10-core Westmere-EX : Read more

 

[razercultmember1]

Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...

 

[Netherscourge]

Seems like the CPU manufacturers have given up on the speed race and are now just trying to cram as many cores as possible onto a single die.

 

[thebigt42]

[citation][nom]razercultmember1[/nom]Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...[/citation]
It will be used on machines with hypervisors and lots VMs

 

[thebigt42]

[citation][nom]razercultmember1[/nom]Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...[/citation]
I don't know how many it can use but I know handbrake (and a lot of video tools do) it uses all 8 threads of my processor when encoding video files. But I get your point, most games are not going to use this.

 

[tokenz]

[citation][nom]razercultmember1[/nom]Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...[/citation]

There are applications for this. Server and workstation programs have been multithreaded for years. Your not going to throw this in gaming desktop.

 

[quantum mask]

[citation][nom]razercultmember1[/nom]Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...[/citation]
This is not a desktop processor, it's going to be used for servers. Servers by their very nature with take advantage of multiple threads. Even if it were used in a desktop there are plenty of programs out today that will take advantage of the multiple cores.

 

[animehair]

just as the guy before me said...these will be great CPU's for servers running lots of virtual servers...or clustering farms.

 

[nforce4max]

This will be a welcomed upgrade so long the memory subsystem doesn't get completely hammered or draw more power than what they are replacing. Cooling server farms and data centers is expensive then maintenance (down time) can be a pain in the backside.

 

[mykem]

I can see this being a great value for a multi-threaded database backend or even a high-performance web server.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

They really need to stop adding cores and threads. Instead, just make things go faster, or at least over 4 Ghz without overclocking. It'll still be a while until most applications even utilize quad cores. Not sure if most of the apps made today even utilize dual cores.

 

[jecastej]

With every new generation every single core gets more powerful but in the 5-10% range clock for clock. I think what many asks and myself too is when a significant core redesign is expected? Or this will keep a very gradual progression for the next years?

 

[teknic111]

Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...

This chip is for servers, and already has uses if implemented in a scaleable environment. Also, how can you create software for a hardware solution that doesn't exist??

"The body cannot exist without the mind"

 

[chess]

i'm wondering when the x86 design will change to something else. For years, people have been saying its inefficient...but in any case, I hope AMD can really hold its ground to Intel this coming year.

 

[mattamonett]

I am the only person on earth that laughs at ignorant comments like

They really need to stop adding cores and threads. Instead, just make things go faster, or at least over 4 Ghz without overclocking. It'll still be a while until most applications even utilize quad cores. Not sure if most of the apps made today even utilize dual cores.

And comments about how most games don’t take advantage of n number of cores.

It is just sad that people that know so little about the subject would even open their mouths. Didn’t anyone tell you people to keep your mouth shut unless you know what you are talking about?
If your app doesn’t support multiple treads by this day in age then it is for good reason. It is not like the developer just refuses to make the app multi-threaded for no reason. It is likely because of two reasons… either the app is so undemanding of cpu power that it doesn’t need it or the problem the app solves just isn’t capable of being done in a non-serial fashion.

I have written probably millions of lines of code. I can tell you first hand that some apps will likely never be highly muti-threaded because they just require a step by step process that can’t be done any other way.

Come on people you should be ashamed of yourselves. You gamers are the worst of all. You think you know something about computers because you can install a game or set your AA video settings. There is more to that expensive rig… try opening something useful or even just browsing the net for knowledge.

Let the flames begin and the stupidity.

 

[lamorpa]

@mykem: "I can see this being a great value for a multi-threaded database backend or even a high-performance web server."

I'm sure this proposed processor will be good at the uses it was designed for. Did you expect something else? I cannot imagine what the purpose of your comment is? Do you think Intel needs a little pat on the back? Do you think they are unsure or even insecure about their market analysis and approach? You may have noticed, they have experienced quite a bit of success in the past.

 

[bildo123]

[citation][nom]razercultmember1[/nom]Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...[/citation]

Target market is servers, you give the impression this'll be used for gaming/desktop browsing which even then most current released games have *some* multi-core/thread support.

 

[mcvf]

[citation][nom]chess[/nom]i'm wondering when the x86 design will change to something else. For years, people have been saying its inefficient...but in any case, I hope AMD can really hold its ground to Intel this coming year.[/citation]
Interesting that you mentioned it, but there is very pragmatic reason why we are/gonna be stuck with x86 for a while. The reason is named Intel. There has been attempts to do more efficient CPUs using RISC architecture, but all companies doing this for servers were killed by the competition - Intel. In longer term, they have lost the race and market shares. Intel on the other hand, took all he could in the server and desktop domain and made sure everything they ever do is well patented. So now producers have about these options:
a) make new chips and literally beg OS producers and SW developers to make OS for their chips and make the same software for it - I don't think Microsoft will ever hear for that as there is known Wintel consortium bringing just so much profits. And lets face it, Microsoft is dominant at the moment
b) Make something x86 compatible and slowed down to oblivion, because those are the only chips which will sell (e.g. AMD)
c) Ignore Intel and make some other chip (e.g. Chinese chips being internally RISC (MIPS), but having translating parts for x86 instructions - meaning slowdowns anyway)
d) Some genius makes new super parallel super awesome chip, which performance hungry users/corporations just cannot ignore it and something new in terms of SW will come up as well

So to speak, your best chance is to hope that one day Intel's CEO wakes up and says something like "Let's abandon x86 for good."

 

[eyemaster]

[citation][nom]razercultmember1[/nom]Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...[/citation]
You have it, it's called Windows. This is for a Server, these will be server chips. What that means is that there's lots of IO and programs running. Multiple cores/threads are going to be used. Completely different from a gaming system that only really runs one program fast.

 

[dylansaliba]

All I know is the same 16 gig high def video files took 10 hours on my old school dual core and 9 minutes on my buddies i7. Get 64 bit OS and applications and you'll see the difference in the threads you noobs. Give me lotsa lotsa threads! I'll make em ALL sweat bullets.

 

[segio526]

[citation][nom]razercultmember1[/nom]Multi threaded applications need to be in place BEFORE stuff like this is created...[/citation]
It says Xeon EX, not Core i7. Multi threaded applications and situations have been around for decades, hence why servers of the past had to use several single core single threaded processors. Databases, Ray-Tracers, and most recently, Hyper-Visers are extremely threaded and will take advantage of as many logical processors as they can get. Imagine being able to assign 4 logical processors to each of several virtual servers. Amazing.

Although, as far as gaming is concerned, I wonder how a couple of these would do on that Quake Wars: Enemy Territory ray-traced demo they did a few years back. They got 30fps at 1280x720 on just 8 logical processors. 40 should make that like buttah!

 

[segio526]

[citation][nom]segio526[/nom]It says Xeon EX[/citation]
Oh crap, it doesn't, it just says Westmere-EX. I see EX and automatically think high-end Xeon.

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]Netherscourge[/nom]Seems like the CPU manufacturers have given up on the speed race and are now just trying to cram as many cores as possible onto a single die.[/citation]

You're just 4 years late on the conclusion but its still right. Grats!

 

[Gin Fushicho]

The question should be, whose is going to be cheaper and still give good performance?

 

[ares1214]

Whoever said add more speed not cores, well they dont know much. Speed is universal, a GHz is a GHz everywhere. Core architecture is not however. Thats why i7 @ 2.8 GHz beats X4 965 @ 3.4 GHz. In any event, making a CPU "faster", as in GHz, is like uping the speed limit on a road. Thats nice and all. Adding more cores is like keeping the speed limit the same, but making it a 4 lane road. What use is it if you can go 80 MPH if you get caught up in traffic. What they are doing now is adding more cores, but more efficient cores so programs can continue to utilize more cores or "lanes" and not get "caught in traffic". Adding more speed isnt as easy as it sounds too, it will likely be 22nm before we see stock 4 GHz cpus, and by that time, Im guessing more programs will be programmed to utilize more cores and threads vs higher clock speed. Intels HT is also a pretty inefficient way of adding 1 thread for every 1 core, as they share resources, and the thread is no where close to a real core in performance. Thats why im more excited about the AMD version, as its much more efficient.