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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
[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 is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen here. Intel would LOVE to produce dual cores and charge current prices for them. For the manufacturer die size is what counts, and more cores take up more space and therefore cut into profits.
 

Win95gui

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2011
1
0
18,510
Some of you seem to forget that this is a SERVER cpu - not for your gaming workstation. I own the current Quad socket Octo-Core cpu's X7560's and for the workloads that take advantage of this many cores it does wonderfully! Was the #1 machine on Aqua@home until I moved it to Seti@home - you can see it here ->http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=5480331
 

V8VENOM

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
914
14
18,995
[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen here. Intel would LOVE to produce dual cores and charge current prices for them. For the manufacturer die size is what counts, and more cores take up more space and therefore cut into profits.[/citation]

You ARE kidding right??? In order for Intel to hit 5-6 Ghz (stable clocking with standard cooling methods) they would need use all the space in a 6 core die for just 2 cores optimized to deal with the higher frequency/heat. With the exception of the "server world" and/or video/audio editing/compression world, the home user (gamer) wouldn't care how many cores there are so long as the CPU ran current games much faster. Your statement is nonsense, Intel could charge just as much ... their profits would NOT change at all.

Most likely increase Intel's profits because when the gaming world got a hold of these very fast 2 core CPUs that were blowing their 4 and 6 core CPUs out of the water in real world gaming, there would be a mass exodus to upgrade ... and hence more revenue for Intel.

Don't get me wrong, more cores is better for Server environments and audio/video edit and image rendering. BUT as it stands right now the average gamer is paying for 2-4 cores sitting around doing nothing ... just wasting die space ... die space that could be far better utilized running just 2 cores at a much higher frequency 5-6Ghz.

But Intel just keep pushing out more and more cores because it's just that much easier for them and they don't have to do any R&D on truely FASTER processors.

 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]You ARE kidding right??? In order for Intel to hit 5-6 Ghz (stable clocking with standard cooling methods) they would need use all the space in a 6 core die for just 2 cores optimized to deal with the higher frequency/heat. With the exception of the "server world" and/or video/audio editing/compression world, the home user (gamer) wouldn't care how many cores there are so long as the CPU ran current games much faster. Your statement is nonsense, Intel could charge just as much ... their profits would NOT change at all.Most likely increase Intel's profits because when the gaming world got a hold of these very fast 2 core CPUs that were blowing their 4 and 6 core CPUs out of the water in real world gaming, there would be a mass exodus to upgrade ... and hence more revenue for Intel.Don't get me wrong, more cores is better for Server environments and audio/video edit and image rendering. BUT as it stands right now the average gamer is paying for 2-4 cores sitting around doing nothing ... just wasting die space ... die space that could be far better utilized running just 2 cores at a much higher frequency 5-6Ghz.But Intel just keep pushing out more and more cores because it's just that much easier for them and they don't have to do any R&D on truely FASTER processors.[/citation]

Again, as someone who actually works in the industry and makes these things - it's plainly apparent you have NO idea about how semiconductors are made. Please, keep pushing your "Intel is an evil conspirator" stupidity.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]Again, as someone who actually works in the industry and makes these things[/citation]Give it up, V8VENOM, jk has a cooler name. It makes him sound like he knows what he's talking about, at least.
;)

(Seriously, go lookup J/K flip flop!)
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
BTW, I also have the feeling that Intel is pushing people towards more cores than they need.

But remember what happened the last time Intel designed a CPU to hit high clock speeds? We got the P4, with its massively long pipelines and low per-clock efficiency. If you compared a P4 at 32 nm to their latest i7 core, you'd probably find that the P4 did clock higher but used more power and still wasn't faster.

Intel isn't dumb. They find the best way to deliver performance and then fit it to the pricing structure they think the market will bear. The only difference between now and before is that # of cores gives them another variable to fiddle with.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
Here's a thought - maybe this is aimed partially at people who are thinking about porting their HPC applications to GPUs.

One big difference is memory bandwidth. Data-intensive algorithms, with relatively simple data access patterns, will still run much faster on high-end GPUs, which have easily 5-10x the memory bandwidth.
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
I can't help but wonder how well Magny-Cours would perform had AMD put it on the 32nm diet and given it faster HT links. Anandtech compared the 2.2GHz variant against Intel's 5670 2.93GHz model in dual socket configurations and at times it seems as if the Opteron's lack of clock speed was the issue. Even if it's a rather crude architecture by design (it's a MCM, something AMD teased Intel about with the Core 2 Quad), it'd perform exceptionally well at 2.93GHz.

If Interlagos (8C/16T for simplicity) really is 50% faster at certain integer-based tasks than an equally-clocked 61XX series Opteron, it'd make for a very interesting comparison with this new 10C/20T CPU. I, for one, can't wait for the benches, even if it matters very little to me in the end. :p
 

robochump

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2010
968
0
18,980
[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]freaking awesome! Just imagine opening task manager and seeing 160 threads! And yes, it can play crysis.[/citation]

All for the low low price of $50K....yes!!!
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
Physical core count isn't everything... remember that AMD is going the way of logical cores, albeit with more dedicated resources.

Magny-Cours is an old architecture. The fact that they've only released one (minor) speed bump is testament to its longevity, but I wouldn't expect another one.

I'm wondering what will happen with Sandy Bridge-based servers...
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
Ok, while this is all nice and stuff, where are the 6 core Sandybridge chips? All I see at online retailers are 6 core gulftown chips.
 

jprahman

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
775
0
19,060


Those will come later this year in the form of the Sandy Bridge-E CPUs for the LGA2011 socket. Don't expect them to be cheap.
 

jgutz2006

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2009
473
0
18,810
My Gaming rig has a dual socket Asus board with E5540s good for 16 Cores to go along with 48GB DDR3 ECC RAM and SSD HDD + 8 15K RPM 146GB HDDs in RAID for storage. i justified myself in doing this so my wife could bring her CAD work home... she has yet to do this of course but its the thought that counts right? Its getting crazy, AMD's 8 and 12 core chips, wow. its only a matter of time when these cores find their ways to the mainstream desktops/laptops (after software can actually utilize this extra power)
 
G

Guest

Guest
"160 threads... in one machine... drool"

My sheets have more...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.