Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Unveils 6-Core Xeon 7400

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-cheaper-by-the-half-dozen dept.

Intel 235

JagsLive recommends CNet coverage that begins "Intel officially unveiled its six-core 'Dunnington' Xeon 7400 processor Monday ... As expected, Intel launched the Dunnington chip for high-end servers ... The Xeon 7400 is also one of the first Intel chips to have a monolithic design. In other words, all six cores will be on one piece of silicon. To date, for any processor having more than two cores, Intel has put two separate pieces of silicon ... inside one chip package."

cancel ×

235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligatory (-1, Redundant)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023547)

Think about a Beowulf cluster of those!

Frosty (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023557)

Frist proast!

6 cores? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023551)

I really like six!

second post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023555)

it's that time of the day. Time for you fags to eat my asshole. There's a nice fat turd for you to chew on. Hope you're hungry!

Re:second post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023867)

Personally I think that sucking cocks is safer and more hygienic then licking cunts.

However, both are better then eating shit...

Monolithic? (0)

HungSoLow (809760) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023567)

Intel, quit living in the stone age monolithic and get with modern times! I mean 6 cores? How about 8!

Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023593)

I think they're really making 8-core chips but their factories are primitive so normally only about six of them work.

These chips are all defective. I wouldn't buy one and neither should you.

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (-1, Redundant)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023647)

Yep. I'm not buying one. No way! Hell, if enough people say this, they'll have to practically GIVE them away....hehehehehehe....giiiivveeee awaaaayyy mmmyyyy presscccciouuuuusss..... uh, yeah. Anyway...

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023667)

I think they're really making 8-core chips but their factories are primitive so normally only about six of them work.

These chips are all defective. I wouldn't buy one and neither should you.

At least the cores won't be trapped behind a hypervisor [wikipedia.org] like another cool, yet restricted cpu.

IIRC, Isn't that also what big blue did to increase the yield on the Cell? I agree, it's pretty dirty to sell what is essentially partially damaged hardware as something new.

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023673)

The PS3's cell chip is 8 core with 1 turned off (or defective) to increase yield. If they have to turn off 2 cores, that's not very reassuring.

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (2, Funny)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023727)

Why are you responding to speculation/a joke as if it were fact? This is a native six core chip, not an eight core with two disabled.

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023821)

That's the funniest thing about those jokes. When some twit shows up and becomes the punchline without even knowing it.

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023871)

Why are you responding to a fact as if it's speculation or a joke?

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024729)

Actually its likely that two cores we disabled because of faults. Thats how AMD ended up selling 3-core chips...

Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024381)

When they get 8 working cores it will be released as the DX model, this will be rebadged the SX model.

Re:Monolithic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023713)

I think they were aiming for 1, 4, or 9 cores, but ended up with 6 thanks to the yields.

Re:Monolithic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023901)

Why do you suppose it would be limited to only three dimensions?

Re:Monolithic? (3, Funny)

Cygfrydd (957180) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023979)

My god... it’s full of stars...

Re:Monolithic? (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023859)

I heard from someone from Dell that Intel had plans for 8 by the end of the year and 12 by June 09.
And we are in mid-September and only deliver 6? I guess thats what I deserve for trusting Dell rep's

Re:Monolithic? (1, Funny)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024345)

Thankfully the core Python developers have been telling us that continued hardware development of adding more cores is simply not happening. Furthermore, this evolution of continued development is simply wrong, bad, and is silly. To make matters worse, we are all delusional and no one is running more than one core and anyone leveraging more than one core is using their computer poorly and inefficiently.

Thankfully, here very soon, we'll all reason that Intel, AMD, ATI, and NVIDIA are all doing the wrong thing and making use of additional cores (and especially SMP) is always the worst way of increasing concurrency.

In all seriousness, hopefully these guys will realize they are dreaming and actually bother to increase scalability with sane, proper, scalable, and programmer friendly methods for doing so.

I Want (4, Funny)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024611)

I'm holding out for a 12 core processor.

I'm also holding out for a razor blade with 6 blades, screw those wimpy 5 blade razors that Tiger is pitching right now. (F*ck, I have a beard, why do I want a razor blade? Screw it, I'm still waiting for 6 blades.)

And we're now tuesday (4, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023573)

I'm betting new Mac Pros will be launched today.

Re:And we're now tuesday (5, Interesting)

sgbett (739519) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023767)

http://www.apple.com/uk/imac/ [apple.com]

Hmm, the page you're looking for can't be found.

interesting.

Re:And we're now tuesday (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023833)

Weird indeed (iMac page is there for the Canadian website, and the UK Mac mini is also present).

Somebody's gonna get in trouble real soon now(TM).

Re:And we're now tuesday (1)

tyler.lee (1319843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023965)

I would think this is just coincidence. The Mac Pros would get the first introduction. Anyone know anything about power consumption/heat, as compared to the quad?

Re:And we're now tuesday (5, Informative)

Trashman (3003) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024139)

The article from Ars technica says:

"Unlike the 65nm, quad-core Tukwila, Dunnington is produced on Intel's 45nm process. This means that Dunnington uses less power, and indeed, the top-end, 2.66GHz SKU has a 130W TDP (compare Tukwila's 170W TDP). The 2.4GHz part boasts a 90W TDP, and there's a 2.13GHz part that runs at a relatively cool 65W."

Re:And we're now tuesday (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023775)

Dunnington is the wrong socket for the current Mac Pros. They would have to rearchitect everything to put a processor designed for 4-way systems into a 2-way box. Apple are almost certainly waiting for the DP versions of Nehalem to come out and jump for that.

No this a S4 cpu the mac pro is S2 and we need des (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024225)

In less you want the mac pro to start at $3000 - $4000.

we need a 1 cpu desktop mac maybe with a 775 xeon at $800 to $2000. The 1 cpu mac pro starts at $2300.

Base 2 (3, Interesting)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023581)

Is it just me, or does 6 seem like a counter intuitive number of cores ?

2,4,8,16 ... we've been using binary since the start, now we have to start in trinary ?

Re:Base 2 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023651)

6 = 8 - 2 broken cores ?

That's already the case. (5, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024357)

6 = 8 - 2 broken cores ?

You joke but that's already the case with PS3's Cell (7 SPU = 8 - 1 broken), with tripple core Phenom (3 = 4 - 1 broken), and with a very high number of graphic cards (The range segment {pro/mid/low-cost} on which a GPU is used = the number of functional cores they managed to salvage)

A separate reason may be the number of {quickpath/hypertransport/etc.} interconnects (6 cores require 15 interconnect to communicate, 8 cores require 28 interconnects). 6 to 8 cores isn't such a big increase but keeps the number of inter connect reasonnable.
(Other processors types like Tilera end up only interconnecting adjacing cores on their 64x chips and you have a strongly *Non*-Uniform Architecture, with not all core able to reach and talk to others at the same speed)

Re:Base 2 (2, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023655)

There is no need for a base two if you are adding. You add cores, you do not multiply them.

2, 3 (yes, triple code do exist), 4, 6. I guess the next step will be 8 and perhaps even skip that and make it 9 (3x3).

Re:Base 2 (1)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023961)

3 (yes, triple code do exist)

The only three core processors [theinquirer.net] I know of are effectively defective quad core processors.

The 4th core is defective so, rather than disposing of them, they are sold as tri-core processors.

Whilst there's no requirement for base two, there is usually a requirement for an even number of cores in SMP (symmetric multi processing)

Re:Base 2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024105)

> there is usually a requirement for an even number
> of cores in SMP (symmetric multi processing)

Why?

You have tasks [A, B, ... I], and you run task A on first core, task B on 2nd, ... task I on ninth. What kind of black magic could possibly hold me back from scheduling nine tasks to run on nine cores? CPU scheduling is CPU scheduling, isn't it? The last time I've checked, you can build a Linux kernel with support for anywhere from 1 to 255 CPUs. Or should I insert "assert((num_cpus%2)==0)" everywhere in my hypothetical homebrew hobby OS?

I think the "symmetric" in SMP means more like "parallel".

Re:Base 2 (3, Informative)

adrianwn (1262452) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024127)

The "symmetric" in SMP refers to all CPUs being identical, not to the actual number of processors.

Re:Base 2 (1)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024255)

The "symmetric" in SMP refers to all CPUs being identical, not to the actual number of processors.

I stand corrected. Thanks

Re:Base 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024663)

Perhaps our esteemed colleague was thinking of bi-lateral symmetric multi processing (BLSMP).

Me, I prefer my Phenom 8650 triple-core as the geometrically superior basis for a stable system.

Re:Base 2 (2, Informative)

dumael (1172411) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024143)

Symmetric multi-processing refers either the generally the type of cpus, i.e. all processors have the same capabilities, or to their relationship with memory. SMP is generally shared memory systems with a set of uniform processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing [wikipedia.org]

Re: "yes, triple core do exist" (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024419)

Again, this is a defective four core chip which you've been duped into purchasing.

Re:Base 2 (0)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023657)

It doesn't actually matter if it's base 2. All that matters for SMP is that it is an even number of cores.

Re:Base 2 (4, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023731)

No, it just matters that you have more than one.

Re:Base 2 (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023795)

Come to think of it, you're right. ;)

Re:Base 2 (2, Informative)

zeridon (846747) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023661)

see amd ... they have 3 cores in one chip and the shit fares prety well

Re:Base 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023977)

I thought the 3-core AMD chips were low bin FOUR core processors with one turned off?

Re:Base 2 (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024543)

see amd ... they have 3 cores in one chip and the shit fares prety well

AMD once said there was a greater efficiency in interconnecting 3 cores, compared to 4.

Re:Base 2 (5, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023679)

Hey, 6 is a power of 2. It's 2^2.585, to be inexact.

Re:Base 2 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023763)

2^(log2(6)) to be exact.

Re:Base 2 (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023869)

Pentium 1 user, aren't you?

Re:Base 2 (1)

Meumeu (848638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024209)

Pentium 1 user, aren't you?

Don't know anything about exp and log, do you?

Re:Base 2 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Conrad (600139) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023717)

Is it just me, or does 6 seem like a counter intuitive number of cores ?

Remember they need to put other stuff on the silicon too. The XBox 360's CPU uses three quarters of the die for three processors and puts the shared cache etc. in the fourth quarter. Six + support circuitry probably fits a square die better than eight + support.

Re:Base 2 (2, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023847)

Sun had 8-core server CPUs since several years now. They didn't have any problems allocating the die's surface.

Re:Base 2 (3, Informative)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023959)

Of course their die surface is 8 times bigger too.

Re:Base 2 (1)

arktemplar (1060050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024269)

Niagra as those are called, aren't very good at individual core performance. There was a study by Berkley some time back that did rate them above the others in terms of scaling. However, this is mostly with respect to memory bandwidth, in my opinion with Intels move from FSB to their as yet unreleased QuickPath Interconnect, which if I understood is closer to the AMD hyper transport. This may be challenged.

FYI the benchmarks were against clovertowns and opterons, and the cell performed best.

Re:Base 2 (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023803)

Is it just me, or does 6 seem like a counter intuitive number of cores ?

Yeah, especially with the new motherboard that fits three of these together...

Re:Base 2 (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023887)

Well, if it can run on souls it means it will also lower my electricity bill.

Specs? (4, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023615)

There wasn't much in terms of technical specs in TFA. 6 cores, 16MB cache, anything else? Clock speed? 16MB of L2? L3? FSB? DDR(n)? (Though this is probably more up to the MB manufacturer) Why are they moving the memory controller off silicon? That in itself seems like a step backwards.

I would like to see them pushing consumer multi-core computing more personally. Get MS and other application manufacturers to support more cores. Servers have been doing it for ages and with pretty much all consumer level chips being dual core they should be pushing this angle more.

Though, them incorporating all of the cores on a single piece of silicon is definitely a step forward; the lack of additional specs and the notion of moving the memory controller make this seem like not as big of an announcement...

Re:Specs? (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023701)

I would like to see them pushing consumer multi-core computing more personally. Get MS and other application manufacturers to support more cores. Servers have been doing it for ages and with pretty much all consumer level chips being dual core they should be pushing this angle more.

And before anyone says...."yeah, but Linux/Mac OS X supports multi-cores out of the box".... Yes, yes it does. However, most of the applications don't actually benefit much from SMP by themselves. A few things like video conversion, but, for the most part, office suites, e-mail user agents, etc., do not actually benefit directly from SMP.

OTOH, why should they? Any processor made within the last five years is good enough for that stuff.

Re:Specs? (2, Funny)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023843)

OFC if your dealing with server, then it does make a difference for example Unisys 96 core offering (*nix & possible mac only) would be able to hold 256 SQL server databases ... or vista pro

Re:Specs? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024061)

Right. Except you can't run SQL Server on a Unisys (or Sun -- yes, Sun makes such servers, too) 96 core box directly, since, as you state, they only run Unix. Oracle, Postgres, MySQL, DB2, etc., yeah, SQL Server, no. (Unless you're running under virtualization....)

But we're not talking about on the server. My comment and my comments' parent were discussing consumer multi-core setups. Most consumers aren't exactly running 256 SQL databases on their 96-CPU E20K.

Re:Specs? (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023969)

Wow, if you need your e-mail and office suite to be processor aware, maybe you should stop using Windows.

Re:Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023705)

Intel don't have memory controller onboard yet. So they're not moving it anywhere in comparison to their existing processors.
It's an incremental update to their existing 4-way platform while they wait to get their shiny new architecture ready for that space.

Re:Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023851)

click on the product link on this page
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon7000/index.htm?iid=servproc+body_xeon7400badge

Re:Specs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024207)

6 cores
1066 fsb
16mb cache
2.4ghz and 2.66 for the extreme model

I want one.... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023629)

I would love to get a new mobo and one of these chips and install it in my Mac.....oh wait, nevermind.

It has six cores... (5, Funny)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023663)

... and a moisturizer strip for a cool, refreshing finish.

Re:It has six cores... (3, Funny)

shams42 (562402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023707)

Did Intel partner with Gillette on this CPU? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930 [theonion.com]

Re:It has six cores... (1, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024037)

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of processors in this country. The Core 2 Duo was the processor to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-core processor. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Quad Core. That's four processors and an aloe heatsink. For cooling. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happenedâ"the bastards went to five cores. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling four cores and a heatsink. Cooling or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to six cores.

Sure, we could go to five cores next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, four worked out pretty well, and five is the next number after four. So let's play it safe. Let's make a thicker aloe heatsink and call it the QuadCoreSuperHeatsinkTurbo. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!

You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-core game. Are they the best a man can get? Fuck, no. Intel is the best a man can get.

What part of this don't you understand? If two cores is good, and three cores is better, obviously six cores would make us the best fucking processor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the processor game by clinging to the two-core industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five core is the biggest chance of all.

Here's the report from Engineering. Someone put it in the bathroom: I want to wipe my ass with it. They don't tell me what to inventâ"I tell them. And I'm telling them to stick two more cores in there. I don't care how. Make the cores so thin they're invisible. Put some on the handle. I don't care if they have to cram the sixth core in perpendicular to the other five, just do it!

You're taking the "safety" part of "safety processor" too literally, grandma. Cut the strings and soar. Let's hit it. Let's roll. This is our chance to make processor history. Let's dream big. All you have to do is say that six cores can happen, and it will happen. If you aren't on board, then fuck you. And if you're on the board, then fuck you and your father. Hey, if I'm the only one who'll take risks, I'm sure as hell happy to hog all the glory when the six-core processor becomes the shaving tool for the U.S. of "this is how we compute now" A.

People said we couldn't go to four. It'll cost a fortune to manufacture, they said. Well, we did it. Now some egghead in a lab is screaming "Six's crazy?" Well, perhaps he'd be more comfortable in the labs at IBM, working on fucking PowerPCs. RISC architecture, my white ass!

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just ride in AMD's wake and make pens. Ha! Not on your fucking life! The day I shadow a penny-ante outfit like AMD is the day I leave the processor game for good, and that won't happen until the day I die!

The market? Listen, we make the market. All we have to do is put her out there with a little jingle. It's as easy as, "Hey, computing with anything less than six cores is like folding your proteins by hand." Or "You'll be so fast, you'll be finding Mersenne primes like a guy on speed." Try "You'll have so many cores, there won't be enough space radio signals for you to pretend to find aliens out of."

I know what you're thinking now: What'll people say? Mew mew mew. Oh, no, what will people say?! Grow the fuck up. When you're on top, people talk. That's the price you pay for being on top. Which Intel is, always has been, and forever shall be, Amen, six cores, sweet Jesus in heaven.

Stop. I just had a stroke of genius. Are you ready? Open your mouth, baby birds, cause Mama's about to drop you one sweet, fat nightcrawler. Here she comes: Put another aloe heatsink on that fucker, too. That's right. Six cores, two heatsinks, and make the second one lather. You heard meâ"the second heatsink lathers. It's a whole new way to think about processing. Don't question it. Don't say a word. Just key the music, and call the chorus girls, because we're on the edgeâ"the Moore's edgeâ"and I feel like dancing.

Re:It has six cores... (1)

arotenbe (1203922) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024595)

Don't you have something better to do with your life than post redundant copies of Onion stories with cheap find-and-replace jobs run on them?

Oh, wait... this is Slashdot. Never mind.

use creators' newclear power to survive holycost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023671)

not an outlandish idea, considering that EVERYTHING made by man fails.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

Wattage (5, Interesting)

locster (1140121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023685)

I think server builders these days are less interested in the number of cores per CPU and more interested in improvements in the performance/wattage ratio.

Re:Wattage (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023739)

Watt you say?

Re:Wattage (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023903)

Qu'est-ce qu'il dit?

Re:Wattage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023919)

Somebody set up us the FDIV!

Re:Wattage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024113)

That's a powerful question!

Re:Wattage (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023899)

That depends entirely where those servers are. Many places rack space comes at a huge premium and anything packing more punch into less space is valuable. Of course, if you're talking about your local server room where you could just put in another rack if you needed to it's not that big a deal.

Re:Wattage (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024213)

Any decent host is also going to kill you for bringing more power to your rack so there is definitely a balancing point. The fact is that the datacenter is designed for a certain power density and going beyond that really screws things up. Airflow and cooling densities, percentage of space allocated to UPS and generators, etc. But, looking at the Intel press release, these suckers pack 6 cores into a 65W power envelope, quite impressive. This compares quite favorably with the 45W for the best current generation quad cores, so total system power per computation should improve quite a bit. Now if only we could get Intel to get away from using power hungry FB-DIMMS.

so this means (4, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023689)

i might finally be able to play crysis on my vista ultimate machine? i mean, granted, my pc will look more like a LHC when im through with it...but a few black holes are worth it

And how will you power it build your own nuclear p (3, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024277)

And how will you power it build your own nuclear power plant?

Can only Linux and hypervisors use it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023695)

Intel's discussion makes lots of mention of hypervisors but nothing about how this will speed up yonder windows box. Is it true that only true multiprocessing operating systems (e.g. Linux) can make use of these multiple cores in a mostly symmetric fashion? Mark

With a catch.... (3, Informative)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023699)

"There's an odd catch, however, that will affect the highest of high-end configurations. "Because Microsoft Windows operating system support is limited to a 64-core environment, within a single OS instance, we'll support up to 64 cores," said Colin Lacey, a Unisys marketing vice president."

Gads, who on earth would run a 64-core Windows box? Unless they want to virtualize out multiple servers on one bit of hardware. Most of the "heavy lifting" I've seen on servers with mucho processor cores are running some flavor of Unix. I'm kinda surprised this hasn't been fixed already given the momentum of multi-core processors.

Cheers,

Re:With a catch.... (4, Interesting)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023749)

Windows optimizes for the low core case. I believe they use a bit field to keep track of the cores, so the 32 bit flavors of Windows are limited to 32 cores, while the 64 bit versions are limited to 64 cores. There may be a high end server SKU that bypasses that limitation, but I don't know of it.

Re:With a catch.... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024235)

There isn't, if Unisys doesn't have it no one does. They basically are billed as the mainframe maker of the x86 market. They were the ones that spurred the development of the Windows Datacenter edition development. There are some VERY large databases running on Unisys hardware.

Re:With a catch.... (4, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024391)

64 cores should be enough for anybody.

Re:With a catch.... (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023993)

Gads, who on earth would run a 64-core Windows box?

Someone trying to run Microsoft's bloated software?

Re:With a catch.... (1, Redundant)

shut_up_man (450725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024407)

64 cores should be enough for anybody.

I really want to know... (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023831)

Really. Why 6 cores? Or 4 or 2 for that matter? Doesn't that just validate the Ever Increasing Bloat (TM) of software. I'm not being a smart a$$. I don't understand these incremental increases for software that only marginally changes...except in size.

Re:I really want to know... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25023931)

Really. Why 6 cores? Or 4 or 2 for that matter?

Doesn't that just validate the Ever Increasing Bloat (TM) of software.

I'm not being a smart a$$. I don't understand these incremental increases for software that only marginally changes...except in size.

It's a Xeon. It's for your server. It's not for the Ever Increasing Bloat (TM) of software, it's for the Ever Increasing Server Load (TM) of Successful Business.

Re:I really want to know... (2, Interesting)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024031)

But I've got users who are upset they *aren't* getting a dual-core "because I need it". Doesn't matter that they are working on Access databases!

vote me up (-1)

netdur (816698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25023963)

if you had an erection reading this headline

Now you can open six tabs in Chrome... (4, Funny)

javilon (99157) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024023)

... and each one will have it's own processor core.

but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024025)

will it run linux?

Core Wars III (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024169)

palpatine : 6 cores !?
yoda : surprized ?

But... (0, Redundant)

zenulator (1362737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024317)

Will it run crysis?

Why buy multi-core? nothing uses it (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024343)

Being stuck in a windows world I see no benefit in multi core CPUs since XP does NOTHING with the 2nd core. I have a dual core CPU at work and CPU utilization NEVER goes over 50% meaning only one core is doing the work.

Does VMware workstation or Ubuntu actually make use of the extra cores?

Re:Why buy multi-core? nothing uses it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024471)

Browsing slashdot in one or two browsers will not push your utilization over 50%. Try opening 5 or 6 slashdot windows.

Re:Why buy multi-core? nothing uses it (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024649)

I do. I have a quad coming right now (Q9550). I run CAD design and also rendering and animation of buildings. I can be designing in the CAD (1 CPU) and have a rendering using 3 CPU's at the same time and not effect the response time of the rest of my work (several rednering pograms will use everything you've got to render as quick as possible). I used to have to do one at a time. I could wait for hours for a detailed rendering and not be able to get any other work done. Yes, this is XP I'm talking about and using.

Re:Why buy multi-core? nothing uses it (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024691)

Then you're running single-threaded applications. Try running multithreaded applications and you can pin both cores at 100%.

Not SM cores? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25024567)

6 cores? not 4 or 8 or 16? Wouldn't it be more profitable if they were to introduce cores in half or quarter steps? 2 cores, then 2.5 cores, then 2.75...
    Personally, I could really dig on 3.1415 cores. Maybe install it in a roof-mounted server or something.

Yay, more cycles we can't utilize (4, Interesting)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25024617)

Until Intel unveils their version of HyperTransport, this will be more of the same.

You put a quad-core Xeon against a quad-core Opteron and under most conditions (besides CPU-only work) the Opteron will kill the Xeon.

Now, we'll have even more cycles we can't utilize, because of the old design of the system.

If you're going to do anything that uses both RAM and CPU (aka VMware hosts, which is what most big servers are used for these days) you'd better off with an Opteron.

I'd rather use a dual or quad socket Dual-Core Opteron than a dual or quad socket Quad-core Xeon.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>