Pictures From Intel's Presentation on Future CPUs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Montezuma

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2008
252
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]njkid3[/nom]what no octo core[/citation]

At some point, more cores on a die will become too much of a cliche. In 50 years, it would be horrible to think that the advertisements would read, "OMG, 1337 h4ckr0z, we have 502,405 cores on a single die!. Beat that, bitches!". Of course, in 50 years, I expect us to be on to quantum-based computing, DNA computing, and other methods that are not even close to being dreamed up.

Then I was to be able to travel back in time and and eliminate John Con...err, I want the Earth to be a peace.
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]skykaptain[/nom]Do you have your gargoyle sunglasses?[/citation]

That is funny, I don't think I will see a 502,405 core processor in my life time.

So speaking in reality, I would like to see an octo core or a 16 and 32 processor on the road map, with mother boards that support 48 and 96gb of ram, that only makes sense.

Maybe my grandkids, kids will see an 100,000 core cpu.
 

ElectroGoofy

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2009
275
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]JN77[/nom]Maybe my grandkids, kids will see an 100,000 core cpu.[/citation]

Well, you never know, in the last 10 or so years computers have taken some quantum leaps.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Sooner or later, computers will start designing themselves.

Engineers will just input the desired specifications nd the computers will come up with the design.

But the scary part of that is how much control will humanity retain over the actions of future computers, especially those designed for the military.
 

charlesxuma

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2008
25
0
18,530
0
i'm dreaming of the day that all manufacturing companies bind together , like intel, AMD/ATI, Nvidia, IBM, and so on , to create ONE MEGA ARCHITECTURE that will defy all laws of physics and chemistry !!!

BEHOLD THE BRINGER OF LIGHT !!!!!!
 
[citation][nom]charlesxuma[/nom]i'm dreaming of the day that all manufacturing companies bind together , like intel, AMD/ATI, Nvidia, IBM, and so on , to create ONE MEGA ARCHITECTURE that will defy all laws of physics and chemistry !!!BEHOLD THE BRINGER OF LIGHT !!!!!![/citation]
Yeah, and a monopoly. You DO NOT want that to happen.
 

pochacco007

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2008
161
0
18,680
0
8 cores, 16 cores, etc.... aren't going to do anything for anyone. having 8+ cores and surfing the net isn't going to make it any different then using a single or dual core. in some way, the processor has somewhat reached a saturation point. but of course that changes due to the program requirements. for instance, running vista instead of xp will require more processor power as well as other essentials to run the operating system. but i see majority of the population will be in dual core as it is sufficient on the basis of the general need of the general consumer.

the geneneral needs of the consumers are typically simple stuff, such as surfing the internet, webchat, online games [yahoo games for instance], youtube, etc.... these are things that don't require so much processing power.

on the other hand, there are consumers that do demand a higher level of tech, typically gamers and tech industries [servers, super computers, etc....]. but in terms of consumers, it's gamers. but i wouldn't consider gamers needing more then 4 cores. for gamers, what often helps most isn't so much of the processing power but rather the graphical card. even with quad cores, we can still maintain greater performance by introducing new changes, like the i7, which has hyperthreading which helps push the processing power even further.

i don't believe there is merit to continue further with 8 or 16 cores as it won't do much for the typical and gamer consumer.

intel and amd should focus on improving other things on the motherboard.
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]Yeah, and a monopoly. You DO NOT want that to happen.[/citation]

I remember looking at SGI 15 years ago, and looking at them now, wow, but... 1 of those fully decked out Octane III Full Towers is a little more money than I can spend for photo and HD Video editing, but 80 cores, 1TB ram and Windows 7 64 would make for an intresting pc
 

kingssman

Distinguished
Apr 11, 2006
407
0
18,780
0
well at first it was more GHZ was all that mattered in a CPU until they hit the GHz limit now its cores, until they reach the core limit, next i believe its the nm reduction until they hit the nm limit so they got the routs of 32 68 128 bit limits which imo could last for a very long time into the megabits. Quantum computing would be with trinary encoding, DNA computing I heard was more of a storage medium than computing power.

I personally would like to see more energy friendly cpus for laptops, perhaps a method to reduce power consumption by underclock all the way down into the mhz range where the cpu could run idle or simple tasks on almost the minimum power that is used to run a calculator. This could extend notebook battery times past the 24 hour mark.
 

sacre

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
379
0
18,780
0
Naw a "multicore race" will die just like the "GHZ" race

How do you move further? not by improving an old idea, but by making a new one that is better.

Instead of more cores, it'll be a new form of CPU that does its calculations a lot differently then current thus increasing speed ten fold, then they'll stack cores, then they'll make a single new one, stack, single, stack. Etc
 

knight9413

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2009
8
0
18,510
0
Right on... different design and approach are what we need. I am also getting tired of controlling the computer with keyboard and mouse... we've been doing that for ages. I am willing to learn something new and ready to move on.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"pochacco007 09/23/2009 11:14 PM

8 cores, 16 cores, etc.... aren't going to do anything for anyone. having 8+ cores and surfing the net isn't going to make it any different then using a single or dual core. in some way, the processor has somewhat reached a saturation point. but of course that changes due to the program requirements. for instance, running vista instead of xp will require more processor power as well as other essentials to run the operating system. but i see majority of the population will be in dual core as it is sufficient on the basis of the general need of the general consumer.

the geneneral needs of the consumers are typically simple stuff, such as surfing the internet, webchat, online games [yahoo games for instance], youtube, etc.... these are things that don't require so much processing power.

on the other hand, there are consumers that do demand a higher level of tech, typically gamers and tech industries [servers, super computers, etc....]. but in terms of consumers, it's gamers. but i wouldn't consider gamers needing more then 4 cores. for gamers, what often helps most isn't so much of the processing power but rather the graphical card. even with quad cores, we can still maintain greater performance by introducing new changes, like the i7, which has hyperthreading which helps push the processing power even further.

i don't believe there is merit to continue further with 8 or 16 cores as it won't do much for the typical and gamer consumer.

intel and amd should focus on improving other things on the motherboard."

pochacco007, you are one of the biggest tards I've come across yet. Maybe your pimply fat ass who lives with his parents does not need the computing power since you only play games all day long and wank off to porn, but the rest of the Scientific community needs quad cores, 8+cores, 32+cores... In fact, if I'd be given 1000+ core machine right now, I already have the software to use it, since I develop highly scalable parallel ML systems. If Intel stops "trying to develop 8+..." core systems, who will? it certainly won't be you, you're too stupid. Why don't you stop worrying about what Companies and Individuals infinitely smarter and wealthier than you are doing, and just worry about your mommy paying your rent, and where you're going to get the cash to buy your next puter game...
 
[citation][nom]JN77[/nom]I remember looking at SGI 15 years ago, and looking at them now, wow, but... 1 of those fully decked out Octane III Full Towers is a little more money than I can spend for photo and HD Video editing, but 80 cores, 1TB ram and Windows 7 64 would make for an intresting pc[/citation]
Not sure if Win 7 supports 80 cores. At any rate, if you get one of these you'll probably run some variant of Linux.
 

ssddx

Titan
Moderator
TimeShrederX4:

First let me remind you that he was talking about average home users and not a business involved in the tech industry. Would you consider your job to be what an average home user would do in their free time? no.

Second, Would you rather not have Intel and AMD strive to develop a revolutionary new product instead of pumping out more crud? Many applications can not take advantage of the computing we have now: why throw more cores at the problem? In your case, there are special computing solutions available.

Last, enough with the ego-trip. your job is not so high and mighty to insult anyone you please. There are many people in a similar situation as you. Show some respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS