Interesting, but I'd like to see benchmarks to back up their claims on reduced power consumption. As well as out performing other CPU's on the market. Also 100 cores seems a tad excessive, and more cores doesn't always equate to more performance.
[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]I want benchmarks.Even if these things are amazingly powerful, 98/100 cores (on occasion 96) still won't be able to be really utilized. Software just isn't that advanced yet.[/citation]
these processors are for servers with massive number of threads running , not for our average desktop !
It's not excessive. You need to get out of the personal/gaming use mentality. Back when 800 Mhz was the high end processing speed people thought anything over a GHz was excessive. I could already see the usefulness of this in regards to server virtualization.
Um, what are these CPU compatible with? Do they run some form of Linux? Do they have an emulation stack for x86 or x64 instructions? As soon as I see what this thing has for processing you could say it has a billion cores and it would be nearly useless.
WOOW we want to know price and other question is about the socket of this thong is just for servers or can it run a windows like others i want it for render im sure 3dmax will like the 100 core edition
AMD was great while it lasted. Its sad to see them go. lol j/k, but something tells me this will be a huge move for the server market. It could be for the desktop market depending on them getting clock speeds up and becoming compliant with x64 and x86.
the upcoming nvidia fermi has 512 cores with a coding model somewhat more similar to traditional SMP systems , with 16 concurrent kernels (independent code) at one time . think massively parallel , guys . fermi , larrabee , HPC etc . how about ray tracing on one of these ?
I highly doubt that Intel licensed the x86 technology to them so this product will not be compatible with most consumer software. It is definitely aimed to server or media applications running on Linux. I could see it running render or server farms but it is unlikely that any of the applications you have heard of will be able to run on this platform.
100 might be excessive for personal use but 4 cores can easily be used at 100% these days during heavy multi-task sessions. In any case they say that the 100 core will be out in Q2 2011 (psst! we're still in 2009 and 100 core might aimed for cheap servers) and with time things only get improved. I support anyone who tries to take the first step.
It's the same with electric vehicles: no one is going to create electric vehicles if there are no (hopefully solar charged) plug-in stations. No one is going to create those plug-in stations if there are no electric cars. It's a catch22 unless someone gets their balls out.
I severely doubt that Autodesk will be modifying any code to utilize this number of processors. Then you have the 3rd party developers of rendering plugins wringing hands at the thought of charging even more for multiple core rendering packages.
Also...don't they mean Q4 2009? Alot can change in one year. AMD and INTEL won't ever reach 100 cores in CPU tech but if they don't have a working demo it will just end up being one of those obscure chips that the general consumer has never heard of.
My call is server chip at best. The only other hope is for Mac to choose this chip as the new CPU in it's MacPro's if they don't like the deal they have with Intel.
That's my call. Mac picks up this chip and severs ties with Intel.