Microsoft Pressing Intel for 16-Core Atom

[silverblue]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]because code would need to be rewritten to take advantage of an apu, and that is a massive ammount of work, on par with porting it to arm.[/citation]

Why recode anything? You don't have to rewrite software just to make Brazos actually work, in the same way you don't have to rewrite software just to make Atom work. They're both x86-64 architectures albeit on a smaller, more simplified scale.

 

[formin]

hope these guys get a cache bump

 

[ProDigit10]

Right now there's only ARM, or a board loaded with (64 or so) Z-series Atom processors.

I would love a quad core Atom, with independent core voltage and speeds, and core shut down of inactive cores.
As well as CPU and integrated graphics turbo boost technology.
If not turbo boost, at least allow users to overclock the atom by 20% (~2Ghz)!

 

[mavroxur]

correct me if im wrong, but isnt server side of things not dependent on speed but on how much data it can process? the 16 core may = the current ones in data processing power, but would use what is it, 1/5 the power?

Don't work with servers much, do you?

 

[chickenhoagie]

[citation][nom]loomis86[/nom]I love it! This article is basically a variation of my theory...that the future of computers is multi-core MICROCONTROLLERS...NOT a CPU as we currently think of them. They will do away with graphics cards first. Then hard drives will cease being serial ATA and will all be PCI or some such. Then ram and bios will migrate to the CPU. Everthing is gradually converging onto one single die...ie a microcontroller.[/citation]
Actually..this won't happen. otherwise it would've happened a long time ago. This might happen for phones and other small devices, but for desktops, there will always be mainstream boards for sale with upgradeable features. Customers want the ability to upgrade, so the only thing manufacturers are going to do is make things more compact and faster, but still upgradeable.

 

[Guest]

AFAIK, Atom is much less power efficient than Nehalem. A 60W quad-core L-series Xeon will beat a 16-core Atom with the same TDP senseless on both multithreaded and (especially) single-threaded workloads. It seems that this is a continuation of the usual Micro$oft policy - "more shit for the consumers!"

P.S. Don't say that single-threaded performance is irrelevant for servers - responce time is often as important as throughput.

 

[Djhg2000]

16 cores... Will its codename be Sulfur?

 

[tester24]

a 16 core fusion APU would be overall better, you could use the GPU in parallel with the CPU as well as have out of order execution which MODERN CPUs have.

 

[palladin9479]

Classic debate between faster multiple thread performance or faster single thread performance. Single-thread performance works best when you have more powerful cores with higher IPC / clock rates. Higher multi-thread performance works better when you have less powerful cores but many more of them. Databases / webservers favor multi-thread performance, application servers, financial data crunching and some types of file servers (Windows) prefer single-threaded performance.

 

[Guest]

Does anyone here realise just who Dr Dileep Bhandarkar is? If there is one person qualified to give guidance on the future of server technologies, it is him. One of my favourite engineering references of all time is his book, Alpha Implementations and Architecture, which totally captivated my imagination back in 1993. He has been behind some of the most important developments in chip technology for over 3 decades, including the DEC Alpha (one of the best RISC processors ever), Intel's Core series (yes, he used to work for Intel for 14 years) and most recently in developing Microsoft's approach to the Cloud.

The Atom architecture is ideal for low-cost, low-power, high-availability server systems, particularly in respect to networkable storage, whcih simply does not need the processor capabilities of Xeon- or ia64-class processors to run. With the increase in storage needed for the Cloud, this is the obvious solution.

 

[sokrman20]

Microsoft needs to go talk to SeaMicro.

SeaMicro's SM10000 High Density, Low Power Server

 

[asheesh1_2000]

Has MS learned to handle a hexacore first...?

 

[warlord435]

otacon72 :
...yet Microsoft went to intel instead of AMD.


Intel and Microsoft are now partners 😵

 

[i003783]

MS are nuts, get decent software and you will not need 16 cores, in fact Windows cannot even talk to 4 cores!!

 

[eddieroolz]

Microsoft, you're looking to the wrong company. Look no further than to AMD for that.

 

[jprahman]

It's not difficult to do with server code. In fact server code, depending on the exact type of server (web, ftp, app), is very amenable to being written to run on multiple cores. I'm not saying it's braindead easy, but it's not extremely difficult. Servers were using multiple cores/CPUs long before home users.