Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Shows 48-Core x86 Processor

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the soon-will-be-in-calculators dept.

Intel 366

Vigile writes "Intel unveiled a completely new processor design today the company is dubbing the 'Single-chip Cloud Computer' (but was previously codenamed Bangalore). Justin Rattner, the company's CTO, discussed the new product at a press event in Santa Clara and revealed some interesting information about the goals and design of the new CPU. While terascale processing has been discussed for some time, this new CPU is the first to integrate full IA x86 cores rather than simple floating point units. The 48 cores are set 2 to a 'tile' and each tile communicates with others via a 2D mesh network capable of 256 GB/s rather than a large cache structure. "

cancel ×

366 comments

Meh. I'm holding out for a kilocore. (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302910)

...or perhaps a megacore?

Re:Meh. I'm holding out for a kilocore. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30302960)

manticore?

Re:Meh. I'm holding out for a kilocore. (2, Funny)

stakovahflow (1660677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303246)

Manticore. Mmm. Manticore... Jessica Alba? I'll cast my vote for manticore any day of the week with Jessica Alba in there... [Dark Angel (Comic/Show) references? Yes, I went there... I'll do it again, too!] Personally, though, I think 48 cores in one proc are enough to float my boat... Then, too, so could Ms. Alba... --Stak

Re:Meh. I'm holding out for a kilocore. (1)

farlukar (225243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303724)

hardcore

48 is sufficient for most Ph.D. dissertations. (5, Interesting)

reporter (666905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303436)

A big market for this chip is the computer-science department of 2nd-tier universities like the University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB).

Unlike Stanford University, UCSB lacks the money to build a full-blown multiprocessor system. If UCSB had such a system back in the 1990s, then UCSB would likely have produced as much multiprocessor research as Stanford University.

This 48-core processor chip, due to the fact that it will eventually be a commercial product mass-produced by the millions of units, will be economically cheap. This chip will enable UCSB to build or buy a cheap multiprocessor system.

A bunch of graduate students is already salivating at the prospect. They are drooling.

Rather than Larrabee, Intel should've focus on CPU (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303486)

Intel ought to focus. They need to focus more on CPU rather than Larrabee, which is an obvious mistake.

Codenames (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302918)

Why can companies not come up with decent code names. For instance, this would be the perfect case for it being codenamed "Beowulf".

Re:Codenames (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303170)

They called it Bangalore because they are going to farm out your processes.

Re:Codenames (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303202)

Just imagine.. a Beowulf cluster^2!

Re:Codenames (3, Funny)

revlayle (964221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303284)

Could you imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowul.... *head explodes*

Re:Codenames (2, Funny)

Acapulco (1289274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303744)

*head asplodes*

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Codenames (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303540)

Intel has always had less than catchy code names, IMHO.

Re:Codenames (1)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303552)

Well, there are a lot of computers in Bangalore...India. Most of them seem to be starving, but they compute. :>

Code Name is Offensive (-1, Troll)

phunster (701222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302928)

Intel an American company, with the American economy in the shape it's in, I am offended at the codename Bangalore.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302978)

It was called Bangalore to remind you where to call if you need any support for it.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303004)

Far more likely to remind you WHERE it was designed.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (2, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303544)

Oh please don't go over your head in this.

India's tech field has improved, but not to the point of design such a chip yet !

Without the West, India is still a big nothing !

Re:Code Name is Offensive (3, Insightful)

farlukar (225243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303694)

Without the West, India is still a big nothing !

And vice versa :p

Re:Code Name is Offensive (2, Funny)

Sigilium (1611915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303738)

It's like this: It's hot and loud and there's so many cores.

As in The Big Bang Theory season 3 episode 4: "I don't want to go to India. It's hot and loud and there's so many people. You have no idea, they're everywhere."

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303452)

I thought a bangalore was a man portable explosive, telescoping lance used to take out pill boxes in WW2?

Re:Code Name is Offensive (5, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303638)

I thought a bangalore was a man portable explosive, telescoping lance used to take out pill boxes in WW2?

That was an offshoot technology. They've finally got all the bugs ironed out and the CPU is much less prone to "uncontrolled exothermic reactions" then it use to be.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1)

RManning (544016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303010)

Intel an American company, with the American economy in the shape it's in, I am offended at the codename Bangalore.

Not to be dense, but why is that offensive?

Re:Code Name is Offensive (5, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303052)

> This post is copyrighted by Robert Nelson for the private use of his audience. Any other use of this post or of any pict

Your sigfile is offensive. What have ye got against the Scots?

Re:Code Name is Offensive (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303198)

What have ye got against the Scots?

Damn Scots!
They ruined Scotland!

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303472)

Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!

Scotland? What is that? All I know of is Pictland.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (-1, Flamebait)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303594)

Your use of ">" is offensive. Rotate it 45 degrees and add four more and you just added a Swastika in the middle of your post!

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303690)

Rotate it 45 degrees and add four more

JJJJ ?

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303024)

It makes sense, afterall.

    Intel made a new 48 core x86 chip called cloud computing on a chip.
    Funny thing is, cloud computer is like outsourcing your computer hardware to a bigger machine that's cheaper to use due to the rental pricings... etc...
    The name of the chip you ask?
    BANGALORE (outsourcing capital of the world)

Re:Code Name is Offensive (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303040)

Intel an American company, with the American economy in the shape it's in, I am offended at the codename Bangalore.

As the last remaining operational Soong type android, I am offended by the name Bang-A-Lore.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303304)

As the last remaining operational Soong type android, I am offended by the name Bang-A-Lore.

At least they didn't name it Bangkok.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303568)

At least they didn't name it Bangkok.

Why? Would it offend yo mama?

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303752)

Intel an American company, with the American economy in the shape it's in, I am offended at the codename Bangalore.

As the last remaining operational Soong type android, I am offended by the name Bang-A-Lore.

So you're B4, then?

Well, I guess it was several years ago that you were known as B4... What's the name you're using these days... "Pryor", isn't it?

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0, Offtopic)

_merlin (160982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303068)

Insightful WTF? If you get offended that easily, you'd better:

  1. Not come out from your basement, lest you see something being worth upset over
  2. Go running to mummy so she can make it better
  3. Or grow up

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303160)

Intel an American company, with the American economy in the shape it's in, I am offended at the codename Bangalore.

First, I agree with you completely. That said, if the processor core is anything like the city it's named for...a 48 core processor on a mesh topology is a good digital analogy to Bangalore -- it is the 3rd most populous urban area in India. It'll also smell horrible, the electrons will be subject to depraved working conditions, and they'll be paid crap for their work, etc. Despite it being a so-called "economic powerhouse", only about 60k of its inhabitants have more than US $1 million net worth. It has over 5.8 million people living there. It makes the wage gap in this country look postively equalitarian.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303212)

Does the fact that none* of the Apple Operating system names are of animals not native to America?

*After 5.1, which is "Kodiak" - which can be found in Alaska.
5.2 Mac OS X v10.0 "Cheetah"
5.3 Mac OS X v10.1 "Puma"
5.4 Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar"
5.5 Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther"
5.6 Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger"
5.7 Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard"
5.8 Mac OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard

Re:Code Name is Offensive (2, Informative)

EdipisReks (770738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303374)

Does the fact that none* of the Apple Operating system names are of animals not native to America? *After 5.1, which is "Kodiak" - which can be found in Alaska. 5.2 Mac OS X v10.0 "Cheetah" 5.3 Mac OS X v10.1 "Puma" 5.4 Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar" 5.5 Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther" 5.6 Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" 5.7 Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" 5.8 Mac OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard

there are pumas in the American west and in Florida, they are just called Mountain Lions or Cougars or Floida Panthers. same thing.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303454)

I refuse to call a Mountain Lion a Puma.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (2, Funny)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303542)

Are you making up imaginary animals again?

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1, Redundant)

Grendel70 (1000350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303496)

And last I checked, Alaska IS part of America.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303446)

One could argue a Puma is essentially the same thing as a Cougar/Mountain Lion... Not much in the way of big cats native to the United States.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (2, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303730)

One could argue a Puma is essentially the same thing as a Cougar/Mountain Lion... Not much in the way of big cats native to the United States.

True. We don't have many BIG cats in the U.S. ... just a lot of FAT cats (greater concentrations can be found in the vicinity of State Capitols and Washington D.C.).

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303222)

With a code name like "Bangalore", I would expect it to be a RISC based CPU that's very slow, requires instructions to be repeated and confirmed, and late to service any interrupts.

Re:Code Name is Offensive (1)

jcnnghm (538570) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303248)

How awful of them to use the name of San Fransisco's sister city, the "Silicon Valley" of India, as a product codename. Were you equally offended when Ibex Peak, Tylersburg, Alviso, Calistoga, Lakeport, Broadwater, Eaglelake, Crestline and Cantiga were used as codenames?

  You don't need to get your panties in a twist over this. Although it is worth mentioning that it makes you look like a racist when you assume that an innocuous naming decision is some form of racial bigotry or social commentary.

Windows 12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30302962)

Windows 12 will require a minimum 48-core 1.4 THz processor and 8TB of RAM. Microsoft are already planning for this one.

Re:Windows 12 (4, Interesting)

mikael (484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303072)

Microsoft once had a podcast where they were talking about multi-core CPU kernels. Their belief was that once you had 50+ cores, you would be able to have a mutex for every single COM object element, simply because you could.

Re:Windows 12 (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303504)

my idea when you had enough was that each process thread can be on it's own processor, is the idea of a mutex for every com object similar? I don't really get 100% what a mutex is.

'Single-chip Cloud Computer' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30302974)

What the heck? Just, what the heck?

Re:'Single-chip Cloud Computer' (1)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303030)

What's the big deal? You're going to need a single-chip cloud computer if you want to operate in the Semantic Web.

2D mesh networks are not technically viable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303002)

They may work fine in towers but drop right out of side mounted desktops and small media units.

Larrabee? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303020)

This seems like it would be very related to their Larrabee GPU project.

Re:Larrabee? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303488)

What? Vector units inside?

Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303044)

Can someone elaborate on why you'd want 48 full processors, rather than a processor with two (dual) or four (quad) "cores" (I'm presuming core in this case == FPU in the article). Supposedly Win7's SMP support becomes much more effective at the 12-16 core thresehold.

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303054)

To enable system administrators to say "Fuck it, we'll go to one blade!"

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303138)

For a server.
Probably not running windows, as linux and other *n.x type OSes support monstrous amounts of CPUs already.

Idle benchmarks (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303154)

With 48 processors you can have your system 98% idle running your typical application at full speed rather than just 50% or 75% idle as is the norm now.
 

Re:Idle benchmarks (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303236)

Please tell me where I can find boxes that would run 50% idle for my use. My company would pay handsomely for such CPUs. Current Quad Xeons fail to do this.

Re:Idle benchmarks (2)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303326)

So would this have saved that guy's ass who spent $1M in electricity running SETI@Home on the school's computers?

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303444)

Current memory architecture has trouble keeping data fed to just 2 CPUs; unless each of the 48 cores has it's own dedicated cache and memory bus, this is a pretty useless design.

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303578)

Yes. Serial RAM acces. Damn. When are people going to realise that RAM, which has a lot of, what are they called, banks?, hysically seperated from each other, could be made paralell?

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303662)

Heh. I remember the old CDC Cyber mainframes, which had like 1 ms core memory... 64-way interleaved. Serial location access wasn't all that bad, as a result: 16 us sequential access time.

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (1)

eabrek (880144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303684)

You can overlap memory accesses to different banks. But the data bus will always be a chokepoint.

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303754)

So why not multiple busses to the CPU?

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303520)

Yes. YES! Raytracing! And emulating a D3Dn card in software (Google: pixomatic) and run the latest game with acceptable framerates.

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (4, Insightful)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303528)

Can someone elaborate on why you'd want 48 full processors, rather than a processor with two (dual) or four (quad) "cores" (I'm presuming core in this case == FPU in the article).

Bad assumption. In this case, we're talking about (what you would consider) a 48 core CPU. Previous designs would have apparently contained only a small number of full processing cores, and a large number of parallel units suitable only for floating point calculations (which can be great for various types of scientific calculations and simulations). This new design contains 48 discrete IA x86 cores.

Seems like the type of processor Grand Central Dispatch [wikipedia.org] was designed for.

Yaz.

Re:Advantages over just adding more FPUs? (1)

eabrek (880144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303582)

Each core has an FPU, so # of cores == # of FPU.

Adding the rest of the core effectively gives you # of instruction pointers == # of FPU. So now, you can run more branchy code (like raytracing and physics simulations).

Yet another cloud? (5, Insightful)

Mortiss (812218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303062)

Why is everything called cloud these days? Yet another du jour buzzword. Is this really justified here?

Re:Yet another cloud? (5, Insightful)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303114)

When it comes to marketing cliches, when it rains, it pours.

Re:Yet another cloud? (5, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303390)

Why can't it just be cloudy?

sorry.

Re:Yet another cloud? (2, Interesting)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303316)

The term "cloud" is over-used, but a 48-core chip is certainly a good match for anyone who uses virtualization, and cloud-style data services are absolutely big users of virtualization.

Cloud computing is certainly a big deal. I recently explained to my boss that instead of spending weeks going through tickets, bureaucracy, approvals, and procurement to get a server in our own datacenter, we could go to Amazon, type the credit card number, and be up-and-running with a few clicks!

I don't know if he understood exactly what cloud computing *is*, but he knows it is important and will have a major impact on IT. So when someone mentions the word "cloud" he listens. Marketers are aware of this sort of thing, so they deliberately use these terms as liberally as possible.

Re:Yet another cloud? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303336)

Why is everything called cloud these days? Yet another du jour buzzword. Is this really justified here?

Given that making effective use of these cores would call for engineering code to work with any number of cores, as opposed to just 2, 4, or 8, then yes it is semi-justified, especially if aimed at the server market. I do say 'semi', though, because I partially agree with you about its silliness.

Re:Yet another cloud? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303632)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cloud_computing_types.svg [wikipedia.org]

Now imagine you'd have this 'cloud CPU' as your server at home that runs apps that you could acces with Google Chrome OS... Great family server... Or remote X and play Doom3 at work from your netbook.

Sounds interesting now? ;)

Re:Yet another cloud? (1)

hazydave (96747) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303700)

They're Intel... they have this buzzword department, and those kiddies have to make a living, too. Remember the Intel Pentium 4 "Netburst" architecture. Nothing whatsoever to do with nets, networking, the internet, etc.... other than the fact Intel Marketroids were trying to convince all the Mundanes (Muggles, to you kiddies) that this CPU would magically make their internet go faster. Yup, that's it.. not the fact you're on a frickin' POTS modem.

Re:Yet another cloud? (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303728)

No, it's just that it's a hot keyword, and a whole lot of people can't be bothered to look up what it really means. And knowing Intel pretty well, their guys most likely know full well what it is, and they took the name as a taunt to anyone who would dare consider distributing workload instead of buying more server hardware and doing it the way that benefits Intel's bottom line.

Obligatory (1)

sajuuk (1371145) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303074)

Now imagine a beowulf cluster of these things...

Only 48? (4, Funny)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303094)

Only 48 cores? I'd ask them to double that, but reasonably, 64 cores should be enough for anybody.

Re:Only 48? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303518)

You do know why Asynchronous transfer mode uses 48 byte packets don't you? The advocates of 32 byte and of 64 byte packets could not reach agreement, so they compromised. Perhaps the Intel designers reached a similar accomadation. (As a software engineer, I too am frequently puzzled when hardware engineers do things that are not powers of 2, e.g. the triple channel memory that Intel's socket 1366 chips currently use, forcing you to by DDR RAM in multiples of 3.)

Re:Only 48? (1)

eabrek (880144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303636)

SDRAM uses a lot of pins. Four channels would just be too much. That's all.

In this case, 48 cores is already 2x a normal processor die area. 64 would be too much.

Re:Only 48? (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303558)

Yea. the APIs of Windows versions prior to Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 used bitfields for processor affinity, meaning that the 64-bit version was limited to 64 logical processors. Which was fine until the 8-core Nehalem-EX came along with hyper-threading too. 8 cores times 2 threads times 4 physical processors equals 64 logical processors. Windows 7 had to introduce new APIs for processor affinity in order to allow more than 64 logical processors.

Obligatory (1)

cowtamer (311087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303214)

Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These !!

Obligatory "Fixed that for you" (2, Funny)

powerlord (28156) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303586)

Imagine a Beowulf Cluster on one of These !!

There, fixed that for you.

Great cost savings (5, Funny)

joeflies (529536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303216)

because now school administrators only have to install SETI@HOME on 100 48-core computers instead of 5000 standard computers.

Re:Great cost savings (1)

n5yat (987446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303566)

But how much will the power cost the school district? :^)

So ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303276)

So, what operating system are designed to take advantage of that many processors? Also, Is it just me or will this make microsoft per core licence policies really expensive?

Re:So ... (2, Informative)

Avtuunaaja (1249076) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303400)

Linux can handle 4096 cores without trouble in the main kernel tree, with support for much larger images already existing in trees forked by people who actually need such things.

Re:So ... (2, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303524)

All of them except windows.

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303290)

Can it run Crysis?

Re:But (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303680)

At about 20-30 fps, according to Intel, with Pixomatic 3 :')

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303310)

....But can it run Crysis....

Synergy! (5, Funny)

HRbnjR (12398) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303356)

This new Cloud processor should create synergies with my SOA Portal system and allow me to deploy Enterprise B2B Push based Web 2.0 technologies!

New GPU for Crysis 2?? (1)

capnhowdy24 (1559671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303418)

Maybe if Nvidia partners with Intel and develops a new GPU out of this, it will handle Crysis 2!

Is there enugh cpu to chipset bandwith to make use (4, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303440)

Is there enough cpu to chipset bandwidth to make use of all this cpu power?

Re:Is there enugh cpu to chipset bandwith to make (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303720)

If you need very little data per core but are executing sick calculations, then yes. But probably not anything realistic...

Sun HAS a 64 thread processor: UltraSPARC T2 (3, Informative)

IYagami (136831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303474)

Re:Sun HAS a 64 thread processor: UltraSPARC T2 (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303572)

All intel has to do is re implement Hyper Threading in each core.

48 cores = 96 threads, IIRC.

That's nothing, how about 64 cores for $435? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303514)

Here's the Wired story.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/08/64-core-chips-a/

Helmer (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303564)

Zomg. Twice as fast as Helmer [helmer.sfe.se] and probably twice as expensive.

Just imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303618)

A beowulf cluster of those!

(yes, yes, I'm old, but old memes are sticky)

Anonymous Dunster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30303650)

Maybe Bill Gates will say, "48 cores is more cores than anyone will ever need." Cor blimey.

48 what cores ? (0)

psergiu (67614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303688)

48 what cores ?

Will a chip with 48x 486 CPUs be of any use today ?

How much L2 cache in each core ? 64Kb ?

Sounds like Sinclair's waffer scale intergration. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30303712)

It does sound a lot like it. Truth is that it is probably a lot more like the old Pentium D packages but still kind of interesting.
So how many Coretex A8 cores could you fit on one of these?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...