MIT's 100-core CPU Will Be Ready This Year

Status
Not open for further replies.

chickenhoagie

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
517
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom]But will it play Battlefield 3?[/citation]
pshhh if my quad core can handle battlefield 3 how do you expect a 100 core to handle it? there's just no possible way.

-_^
 
G

Guest

Guest
Give me less cores...more GHZ! I don't care what it takes. Bring back the GHZ wars!

oh, and thanks in advance.
 

nurgletheunclean

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2007
150
0
18,690
1
While a good approach, it will not be mainstream. People have been asking Intel to do this for years with the original atom processor. Now that Medfield is out and can run at peek frequency at 650mw. Intel could pack 100 medfields onto a single die for a fraction of the wattage of TILE-Gx, and have full x86 compatibility at the same time. If serious demand for this kind of chip surfaced Intel's designs and processes would be far more desirable.

and no it won't run BF3, or windows.
 

internetlad

Distinguished
Jan 23, 2011
1,080
0
19,310
10
inb4 DURR CAN'T WAIT TO PUT THAT IN MY GAMING PC from a bunch of 14 year olds who don't know what's going on.

I know this because I was that 14 year old once.
 

dormantreign

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2010
473
0
18,810
13
i sorta want GHZ too. The dolphin emulator requires it and a boat load of applications run faster too with higher GHZ. Hold at 8 cores and push the GHZ envelope to around 6...then add more cores again. Rinse and repeat.
 

Pherule

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2010
591
0
19,010
8
"...pitted the TILE-Gx against Intel and AMD's Xeon and Opteron server-processors"

How is that for a test? They don't say how many cores the other servers had, so we can't make a real comparison here. It's no good having 100 cores if you only get a 67% performance boost over an 8-core machine.

Moreover it would help quite a few people to have 100 cores processors in desktop (non-server) machines too. I would certainly use 100 cores; I do some brute-force work as well as heavy floating point operations. Heck, I could do with a 1000 core CPU. Bring it on.
 

rosen380

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2011
422
0
18,780
0
"higher clocks do no necessarily mean higher performance......"

This. You take a P4 3.80 GHz and I'll take a Core i7-2960XM [2.70 GHz]. The latter DESTROYS the former despite the difference in clock speed...

I'll take $$$ put into architecture changes that yield 10x performance improvements over the same money going towards doubling clock speeds...
 

ajay_vishvanathan

Distinguished
May 9, 2009
87
0
18,630
0
o_O looks like i can run a hundred counter strike 1.6 servers from my home with enough ram and internet.. :D
ILL BE RICH!!!! :D
btw keep it up.. reduces business costs.. saves space in servers.. this is just good.. :D
 

mrmaia

Distinguished
Aug 9, 2011
598
0
19,010
17
In fact, just last summer, Facebook pitted the TILE-Gx against Intel and AMD's Xeon and Opteron server-processors.
Wait, is Facebook reviews hardware? I guess Apple fanbois found their safe haven with their $8k FB machines.
 

rosen380

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2011
422
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]wardwing[/nom]I wonder how F@H would run on this? 25x4 clients? 100x1 client?x denoting cores fwi[/citation]

Maybe not a review, but I assume they have some unbelievably huge amount of hardware powering their site, so I bet they have a vested interest in finding more efficient CPUs...
 

Zagen30

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2008
83
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]wardwing[/nom]I wonder how F@H would run on this? 25x4 clients? 100x1 client?x denoting cores fwi[/citation]

Outside of the fact that it's not an x86 processor, and thus not supported, the Wired article says that the cores are not very optimized for floating-point performance, which is what FAH depends on. 64, or 100, of these cores on one chip could make up for the individual lack of FP computational power, but I'm not sure any of us could say more than that.
 

madooo12

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
367
0
18,780
0
i don't understand, don't GPUs now have 2048 cores
for stuff that needs parallelism GPUs are king, why use 100 core CPUs while you can get 2048 core GPUs

or is there something i missed
 

mbryans

Distinguished
Feb 2, 2011
18
0
18,510
0
I think they should make a 100-core CPU with integrated graphics on a single chip. Working in 64-bit environment with a maximum TDP of 100 Watts, and supports DirectX 11. The integrated graphics have performance equivalent 4-way CrossFireX HD 7970. Too bad they have not think about it ...
 

madooo12

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
367
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]rosen380[/nom]"higher clocks do no necessarily mean higher performance......"This. You take a P4 3.80 GHz and I'll take a Core i7-2960XM [2.70 GHz]. The latter DESTROYS the former despite the difference in clock speed... I'll take $$$ put into architecture changes that yield 10x performance improvements over the same money going towards doubling clock speeds...[/citation]
actually i remember something on THW that showed all intel core processors had nearly equal IPCs
and they beat P4
so higher clock speeds on core processors do mean performance gains
 

warmon6

Splendid
[citation][nom]rosen380[/nom]Maybe not a review, but I assume they have some unbelievably huge amount of hardware powering their site, so I bet they have a vested interest in finding more efficient CPUs...[/citation]

That's called all the people donating the computers time for F@H. ;)


[citation][nom]wardwing[/nom]I wonder how F@H would run on this? 25x4 clients? 100x1 client?x denoting cores fwi[/citation]

Well, there isn't a core/thread limit as of right now and if memory serves right, on the F@H forums, someone had eight, 8 core xeons on one motherboard (64 cores but 128 Threads) and it was running fine with one client.

So 1 client will support over 100 cores. Although the better question is, is the FPU's in each core strong or are the weak? That'll make more of a difference.
 

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960
96
[citation][nom]mbryans[/nom]I think they should make a 100-core CPU with integrated graphics on a single chip. Working in 64-bit environment with a maximum TDP of 100 Watts, and supports DirectX 11. The integrated graphics have performance equivalent 4-way CrossFireX HD 7970. Too bad they have not think about it ...[/citation]
Dear lord I hope you're joking. Nobody could be that clueless.
 

pedro_mann

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2010
143
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]nurgletheunclean[/nom]While a good approach, it will not be mainstream. People have been asking Intel to do this for years with the original atom processor. Now that Medfield is out and can run at peek frequency at 650mw. Intel could pack 100 medfields onto a single die for a fraction of the wattage of TILE-Gx, and have full x86 compatibility at the same time. If serious demand for this kind of chip surfaced Intel's designs and processes would be far more desirable.and no it won't run BF3, or windows.[/citation]
If it were an x86 chip why wouldn't it run windows? No reason not to run an enterprise grade server os on an x86 chip. Unless you are trying to save on licensing costs. But, I do agree that it would not be a great gaming chip. Same reason AMD got slammed on it's new architecture. I am pretty sure IPC on the atom chips wouldn't scale well for single threaded apps. But 100 atom cores might perform like 50 i7 cores. And not to mention the power savings if a serer can sit at idle running just a couple atom cores and throw on the heat when demand increases. I could see extra servers sitting around that can handle insane peak loads, but cost very little to operate when unused.
 

pedro_mann

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2010
143
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]mbryans[/nom]I think they should make a 100-core CPU with integrated graphics on a single chip. Working in 64-bit environment with a maximum TDP of 100 Watts, and supports DirectX 11. The integrated graphics have performance equivalent 4-way CrossFireX HD 7970. Too bad they have not think about it ...[/citation]
Using current silicon technology, I am pretty sure a 7970 won't run full load at 100 watts TDP, let alone the extra three, and add in the 100 cpu cores and you are sunk. You are describing like a 500 watt design. Now imagine what temperature that much energy in that small amount of space would reach. There is no solder invented on this planet that wouldn't melt. You'de have to bathe it in liquid nitrogen just to get it to boot.
 

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960
96
[citation][nom]dormantreign[/nom]i sorta want GHZ too. The dolphin emulator requires it and a boat load of applications run faster too with higher GHZ. Hold at 8 cores and push the GHZ envelope to around 6...then add more cores again. Rinse and repeat.[/citation]
You need to bone up on your CPU history, as do all the other people clamoring for "more GHZ."

The clock speed wars ended because it was totally unsustainable. The increase in heat generated from running at higher clock speeds is greater than the amount of extra speed you get. So, for example, if you increase the clock speed 15%, you increase the heat by 30% (not real numbers). Most people don't have access to plentiful liquid nitrogen, so you can't just keep ratcheting up the speed or the chips will literally burn up.

Instead, Intel and AMD have adopted different strategies to make the chips faster. Intel has aggressively optimized the chips to get a higher IPC (Instructions Per Cycle). This means that more gets done on every cycle. AMD was initially pursuing this as well, and was beating Intel in this arena, but in recent years they stagnated and even regressed (I'm looking at you Bulldozer) on their IPC. To compensate, they just cram more cores onto the chip. Works well in some cases, really poorly in others.

So, the chips we see today are a product of these diverging strategies solving the problem of "How do we make chips faster when we can't increase the clock speed?" Intel chips have fewer cores than AMD chips, but each core is much more powerful than an AMD core. This is why Intel totally dominates AMD in single threaded workloads. At a given clock speed, Intel chips are simply faster clock for clock than AMD's. On the other hand, AMD chips can really stretch their legs when presented a multithreaded workload and usually pull ahead of Intel if they can keep all their cores active.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS