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

[stalker7d7]

[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]
Precisely.

I have a Pentium Extreme Edition dual core with hyper threading at nearly 4.4 GHz and it doesn't perform half as well as my q9550 at stock 2.86 GHz (let alone at 4 GHz). Even core 2 duos at 1.8 GHz perform much much better in most applications. That's just how important the architecture is.

 

[quangluu96]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]You do remember the whole Pentium 4 vs Athlon vs Core2 fiasco right?higher clocks do no necessarily mean higher performance......[/citation]
I totally agree, if you look at Bulldozer which made the highest overclock at over 8ghz+ do you think it's still faster than an i7 2600k at 4.6ghz OC? LOL hell no...it depends on the architecture

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom]But will it play Battlefield 3?[/citation]
play it? the 64 bit version will host a 1000 player per map game!
limited by 4gb of memory it probably only hosts 100 or less per map game ???

 

[kanaida]

hmm... don't you need motherboards to plug those into?
As long as it's cheap and it runs on linux mint, i'm all good.

 

[kanaida]

[citation][nom]fb39ca4[/nom]so how powerful are these cores actually?[/citation]

Its more like a gpu really, except nvidia has lots more. but repurposed for general use.
But without requring cuda or GLSL

 

[yumri4]

if they are selling it to the general public for like lower then $500 i would buy one of these or at least the 64-core version and hopefully be able to OC that to 1.8GHz as Blender, Visual Studio, and some other programs of mine actually take advatage of 64+ cores in a single machine but if they are all going at like 800MHz - 1024MHz then i dobt even the sever market will want to buy their CPU despite having so many cores the speed isn't there for the current apps which are made for less cores and need the speed

 

[opexx]

[citation][nom]madooo12[/nom]i don't understand, don't GPUs now have 2048 coresfor stuff that needs parallelism GPUs are king, why use 100 core CPUs while you can get 2048 core GPUsor is there something i missed[/citation]

its something you missed. very different kinds of "cores"

 

[biscuitasylum]

and to think... some of these posters actually give advice here. lmao

Willard... Kudos to you sir... great earlier post.

 

[Tavo_Nova]

they should start making a gaming cpu with 500 cores and 1000 threads lol, which can be easily overclocked to 200ghz at 50c temp under load lol

 

[robojin]

This is good news for multi-media designers. 3Ds max, Autocad, Photoshop.. This softwares loves core quantity.

For gamers, stick to AMD and Intel and return to your argument. Take Tilera our of your endless non-sense.

 

[bit_user]

No, but it can play Farmville!

 

[shafe88]

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Ok, I have to ask though, "But can't it play Crysis?"[/citation]
No it cannot play crysis cause it's not an x86 processor, and don't think it's not junk cause it can't play crysis just like an arm processor can't play crysis and it's not junk.

 

[shafe88]

typo "No it cannot play crysis cause it's not an x86 processor, and don't think it's not junk cause it can't play crysis just like an arm processor can't play crysis and it's not junk." should be "No it cannot play crysis cause it's not an x86 processor, and don't think it's junk cause it can't play crysis just like an arm processor can't play crysis and it's not junk." lol

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]fb39ca4[/nom]so how powerful are these cores actually?[/citation]
From TFA: "The test saw a tuned version of Memcached on the 64-core Tilera TILEPro64 yielded at least 67 percent higher throughput than low-power x86 servers."

So the 64-cores TileGX is only ~67% faster than a quad-core low-power quad-core i7/Xeon. So that would make the 100-cores TileGX about even with i7-3930k. If I am not mistaken, that would make individual TileGX cores about 94% SLOWER than Sandy Bridge ones.

Having more than 10X as many cores is a little silly when each one has less than 1/10th as much processing power.

 

[static1120]

This Is a server CPU Not a desktop CPU for many of you guessing
more cores means more dedicated tasks per core even if each core runs at 400 or 200 Mhz if the tasks are processed by a core each that would mean more performance

 

[1965ohio]

Well... the multiple core race. It has replaced the clock speed race. Woohoo! More cores, higher clock speed, all of this means nothing without efficient throughput designs. Look at AMD's sorry new multicore offerings. Throwing more cores and higher clocks at the problem will find it limits soon. Then everyone has to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make the memory and device communication faster again. Why don't they just design an entire computer on a single chip? CPU, GPU, memory, chipset and storage into one chip? And make it one square inch. That would be newsworthy!

 

[twelch82]

[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]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.[/citation]

If 100-core CPUs were common, games would be built differently to take advantage of it. There just hasn't been a good enough reason to support many-core to justify the additional programming requirements and overhead required to get it to work.

To qualify this, I'm a professional videogame programmer, and I've created some tech demos supporting unlimited cores. It just hasn't been worth it to implement it yet in a production environment, due to the upfront overhead and restrictions.

Also, C++ does not provide the programmer convenience checking you would like to have for making sure that read/write restrictions are properly enforced for specific objects. So more is left up to the individual programmer to not make a mistake than would be desired.

 

[xzendor]

Now If We Could Get That For The Desktop As Well.

 

[cats_Paw]

We have been hearing since year 2007 on how many cores Intel "Plans" to have by year X.
We see news like this.

Still we are sold 4/6 core CPUs at quite high prices.
Intel is not stupid. If it sold 24 core processors today, by 2014 it would have no income. 24 cores would be enought for the next 8 years, and a company needs you to keep buying to survive.
Personally im still running on my Q6600 and while i cant have everything maxed out in games or i cant stream, ill wait a bit longer with my upgrade untill the new consoles come out and the CPU/GPU upgrade settles down.

 

[rosen380]

"Intel is not stupid. If it sold 24 core processors today, by 2014 it would have no income. 24 cores would be enought for the next 8 years, and a company needs you to keep buying to survive."

IMO the reason is probably more that to put 3x-5x as many cores onto a CPU [and still have them x86 compatible], they'd have to be much slower cores than we have now. If you had to choose between 4x 3.0 GHz cores and 24x 800 MHz cores, which do you want? For most people, I bet the former will still be much faster.