Intel to Ship 10-core CPUs in First Half of 2011

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
With rumors about AMD being bought out, im starting to lose interest in AMD. I'm not a AMD or Intel fan but in some way i did prefer AMD over intel just for gaming rigs because it was so much cheaper. But now that sandy bridge is out the price on sandy bridge platforms is on par with AMD's current platform but faster. AMD where are you! What's the hold up on bulldozer?
 
[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]what board has 8 sockets? Most Ive seen is 4.[/citation]
Obviously the boards that they are gonna be making compatible with these chips. Before the processors probably weren't able to work in configs of more than 4. But, oh my god, Intel has gone and made them 8 socket compatible. Someone has been living under a rock too long to realize that tech actually advances. In all honesty, a number of years ago, 4 socket boards were unthinkable.
 
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]AMD's been selling magny cours (12 cores) for over a year now and soon to release 16 core any day now. Big deal.[/citation]

Yes, but do they have hyper threading or the power of Intel procs? I mean my i7-2600k smashes any AMD proc I have come across, including 1100T's overclocked above 4 GHz. So honestly, it is a big deal, because Intel's 10 core CPU's could probably absolutely crush any 16 core that AMD produces. IT's also about high level parallel computing. With 8 socket boards handling these suckers, like they said, 160 threads of processing power. AMD has nothing close to that amount of processing power without running huge machines.
 
The number of cores and gigahertz is not the issue, we are talking about CPU architecture now and AMD is still lagging in that area. If they want to compete they will have to redesign and skip 32nm process IMO.
 
I put up a few too many posts,because when I cliked submit my comment for some reason unknown to me nothing came up & I just posted something different each time instead...All of a sudden after the third time,the previous posts came up for me to see..
 
Wow I think this is the first time Intel has ever done something like this. Where is the socket 6 Billion? Thats almost... AMD like. What next these processors sell for $800?
 
10 cores, oh boy just what no ONE needs ... 8 more CPUs just stilling idle 95% of the time while Intel collect your cash.

Geez, is no one getting it yet???

Intel can easily produce a 5Ghz or 6Ghz dual core processor that would run circles around their 6 core processors ... AND in real world games and applications you would see a huge benefit. So why don't they??? Because they keep feeding us BS about needing more cores ... reality is, most applications can barely run make use of 2 cores, let alone 10 cores.

Why Intel will NOT produce a 5Ghz or 6Ghz dual core processor is because it would invalidate their move to more and more and more cores. Afterall who would be a 10 core 3Ghz CPU when a 2 core 6Ghz CPU out performs it in EVERY single aspect in real world games and applications.

THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE!! Stop accepting more cores as the "Future" and start to realize that Intel doesn't go much about 3Ghz. An NO it's not an heat issue and it's not a power consumption issue, it's just a decision Intel made so they wouldn't have to invest time and money in making a 5 or 6 Ghz dual core ... with today's current die size it would run circles around 10 core CPUs at 3 Ghz.

Ugh!

We DO NOT NEED MORE CORES.
 
[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]10 cores, oh boy just what no ONE needs ... 8 more CPUs just stilling idle 95% of the time while Intel collect your cash.Geez, is no one getting it yet???Intel can easily produce a 5Ghz or 6Ghz dual core processor that would run circles around their 6 core processors ... AND in real world games and applications you would see a huge benefit. So why don't they??? Because they keep feeding us BS about needing more cores ... reality is, most applications can barely run make use of 2 cores, let alone 10 cores.Why Intel will NOT produce a 5Ghz or 6Ghz dual core processor is because it would invalidate their move to more and more and more cores. Afterall who would be a 10 core 3Ghz CPU when a 2 core 6Ghz CPU out performs it in EVERY single aspect in real world games and applications.THINK ABOUT IT PEOPLE!! Stop accepting more cores as the "Future" and start to realize that Intel doesn't go much about 3Ghz. An NO it's not an heat issue and it's not a power consumption issue, it's just a decision Intel made so they wouldn't have to invest time and money in making a 5 or 6 Ghz dual core ... with today's current die size it would run circles around 10 core CPUs at 3 Ghz.Ugh!We DO NOT NEED MORE CORES.[/citation]
This CPU is not an i7, it wasn't made for general use or gaming. It was made for high end servers.

Also the reason that most people think that a overclocked dual core CPU is faster than one of these is because almost all general purpose apps only use up to two cores. The same thing can be said about games. On a server this isn't a problem because most services and application are ready to work with lots of cores.
 
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]This CPU is not an i7, it wasn't made for general use or gaming. It was made for high end servers.Also the reason that most people think that a overclocked dual core CPU is faster than one of these is because almost all general purpose apps only use up to two cores. The same thing can be said about games. On a server this isn't a problem because most services and application are ready to work with lots of cores.[/citation]

No, that's not true either. Most services and applications for servers are actually single-threaded. What these processors are for is server density consolidation ie. multiple workloads per compute module, or in plainer IT speak, many server machines virtualized to run as individual VM's on a single piece of silicon. Instead of having a datacenter with several dual or quad CPU's running VM's, you can pack in many more virtual systems if you have more cores in the same amount of space.

Also, about threaded applications: a lot of database workloads would lend themselves to threading (think SQL-based servers), however most are designed to run multiple compute modules (rackmount CPU modules where storage is separate) with each running an instance that syncs back and forth, so that if one has x number of users, and is tied up with transactions, the next processor block is available to meet computational needs. Most IT setups have VM's with very small single-purpose workloads to simplify manageability, but each one still has to have an operating system too. Most operating system manageability in a high-density VM environment is barely an afterthought for good IT though, because settings should be standardized between VM's. It's the applications and integrated server roles that IT cares about most. Provisioning a new VM that is ready to accept a new application or server role should take less than 10 minutes if IT has done their job right.

All of these high core count processors are for is to cut down on energy and space usage inside a datacenter. These types of systems are not designed for home-use, SOHO, or SMB's. Only enterprise-class business need apply.
 
Actually most web servers are multi-threaded extremely well. In general server software is well suited to multi-threading because you can assign one thread per request. Although in practice server programs don't always assign just one request per thread, they sometimes assign multiple requests per-thread and use async I/O to increase throughput.

It is true though that CPUs like these are for massive datacenter applications, where large numbers of VMs are being run or massively parallel transaction processing systems need maximum throughput.
 
Maybe Tom's can do an article about Cores vs. Gigahertz vs. Apps and Games. I would assume faster gigahertz can help more with games for response times? Cores will help with threaded apps/games and some server apps out there work better with more cores and/or gigahertz?

I am thinking there is a chart to be made somewhere for this!

It really is difficult to read all the "expert" comments that get posted on the blogs.
 
[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]Actually most web servers are multi-threaded extremely well. In general server software is well suited to multi-threading because you can assign one thread per request. Although in practice server programs don't always assign just one request per thread, they sometimes assign multiple requests per-thread and use async I/O to increase throughput.It is true though that CPUs like these are for massive datacenter applications, where large numbers of VMs are being run or massively parallel transaction processing systems need maximum throughput.[/citation]

I don't ever see anybody using multiple cores in a production environment wherein the server workload is run off a single CPU though. In every environment I've seen, CPU allocation is only modest and multiple machines (usually virtual) are allocated for redundancy and processor bandwidth offloading. See, if you're doing AD DC on multiple machines, you not only get additional processing power, but you get extra redundancy that you don't get by just throwing more cores at a single instance. Also, most web servers don't need a lot of actual processing power unless you're doing server-side computational processes, and those are dwindling now what with client-side JS being much more powerful. Aside from that, you have web app database processes, and those processes benefit more from having more machines, not cores, for the reasons I just explained above.
 
Well a major advantage of multiple threads come from being able to serve multiple requests simultaneously. If you perform blocking synchronous I/O with a single threaded server you can only serve one request at a time and furthermore you can't serve the next request until after a potentially lengthy disk access. Multiple threads allow you interleave I/O accesses and although it's possible to do the same with a single thread it's difficult to pull off the required asynchronous I/O.
 
[citation][nom]billj214[/nom]The number of cores and gigahertz is not the issue, we are talking about CPU architecture now and AMD is still lagging in that area. If they want to compete they will have to redesign and skip 32nm process IMO.[/citation]
EXACTLY!!!!
 
[citation][nom]TheWhiteRose000[/nom]Will that work on a 1366 socket?o_0?[/citation]
No, Nehalem-EX is socket 1567 so it would stand to reason that Westmere-EX is also socket 1567. Would be awesome though if they did eh?
 


Nobody does this in production environments where you're using iSCSI or some other drive array. When you look at hosting providers, very few offer more than single-core virtual machines. What they will do is provision additional virtual machines because there are more benefits with using smaller machines. Even Microsoft wants low-power many-core Atom derivatives for their data centers - and it's not for running multithreaded applications - it's for running many single-core virtual machines without having to divide time slices within a single core (they want to lock in each core running a separate VM, not divide a 12 core system into 36 VM's). If you use Azure, compute slices start at 1.6GHz with 1 core. Adding additional VM's with duplicate instances to handle extra compute bandwidth is preferred over upgrading to higher compute bandwidth rates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom