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 To Ship 48-Core Test Systems To Researchers

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-one-link's-enough-really dept.

Intel 135

MojoKid writes "Just when you thought your 6-core chip was the fastest processor on the planet, Intel announces plans to ship systems equipped with an experimental 48-core CPU to a handful of lucky researchers sometime by the end of the second quarter. The 48 cores are arranged with multiple connect points in a serial mesh network to transfer data between cores. Each core also has on-chip buffers to instantly exchange data in parallel across all cores. According to Sean Koehl, technology evangelist with Intel Labs, the chip only draws between 25 and 125 watts."

cancel ×

135 comments

Error 503 Service Unavailable (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31798760)

You dirty stinking stupid cocksuckers!!! Next article should be about your nauseating incompetence! FIX IT!!!

Busted ... (1)

Macka (9388) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798828)

Well, not very eloquently put, but it's obviously not just me who can't get to his own Slashdot page. I first noticed it about 11 hours ago, so it's been broken for some time.

Is the 48-core chip the same as the one ... (2, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798922)

... reported in this Slashdot entry - http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/02/215207 [slashdot.org] ??

yes (n/t) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799250)

no text

I just have to ask (4, Funny)

toygeek (473120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798772)

Can you imagine a *Beowulf cluster* of these things!? Think about the possibilities!

Re:I just have to ask (1)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798896)

never have a loading bar again!

Re:I just have to ask (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799118)

Now 48 CPUs can wait for the disk!

Re:I just have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799540)

Traditional disks are on the way of the CRT monitors of yesterday. Processor caches are getting huge and cheap machines came loaded with plenty of RAM.

Re:I just have to ask (2, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800064)

That doesn't really help me as long as people are doing disk I/O in the GUI thread.

Just get a Sun/Oracle T2+ (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800168)

Seriously... That has 64 cores in one CPU. Sun/Oracle sells several systems which use 2 or 4 of these in a single system.

Re:I just have to ask (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800680)

Wow, modded insightful. Now funny -- that I would understand. Apparently no one has heard of QPI or SANs? Come on, guys!

Re:I just have to ask (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31798920)

Yes, I can think of the possibilities...

A Jaguar (or Roadrunner) of these processors would still be too slow to numerically solve the geomechanics problems I grapple with daily though. A Jaguar equipped with these processors would be approximately 20 petaflops peak. To simulate 1 sec of fracture of a 10mm cube of rock on the atomic scale would require of order 10^36 floating point operations. To do that would take 10^20 sec at 10 petaflops. Not bad really...that's only 10^12 years. Oh wait, the universe hasn't even been around that long...

Having said that I'm a researcher who writes and uses high-performance parallel software daily. How might I become one of Intel's select few to trial these chips? I can certainly think of ways to keep them warm!

Please Intel please! ;)

Re:I just have to ask (4, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798988)

fracture of a 10mm cube of rock on the atomic scale
Ha, I can do that in less than a second, with my serial mallet.

Re:I just have to ask (3, Funny)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799812)

fracture of a 10mm cube of rock on the atomic scale
Ha, I can do that in less than a second, with my serial mallet.

You left out an important detail: 1 sec of fracture of a 10mm cube of rock on the atomic scale

Whoa! Chuck Norris has a Slashdot account?

Re:I just have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799026)

take a NEC SX-9 and things gets a lot better maybe:)

Re:I just have to ask (3, Funny)

urusan (1755332) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799048)

It certainly beats the 10^13 years it would take with a Jaguar!

Re:I just have to ask (1)

Cinnaman (954100) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799120)

Talking about Jaguars and multiple processors reminds me of a certain console...

Re:I just have to ask (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799122)

How might I become one of Intel's select few to trial these chips? I can certainly think of ways to keep them warm!

Please Intel please! ;)

Well, posting as AC certainly will help your chances.

Re:I just have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799502)

Yeah, because Intel ships goods based on /. accounts.

Chip trial (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799550)

Hi,

I'm an engineer at Intel and we are looking for a few more candidates to test our 48-core chips. Your scientific computing project sounds like a perfect fit for our trial. Please contact me (see my account info for my email address) and we'll get you in the program.

Cheers!

Re:Chip trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800036)

I'm an Intel engineer and I can't get hold of one these things.

Re:Chip trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800796)

You are not based in Nigeria

Re:I just have to ask (2, Insightful)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799414)

Having said that I'm a researcher who writes and uses high-performance parallel software daily. How might I become one of Intel's select few to trial these chips? I can certainly think of ways to keep them warm!

ummm, lets start by not explaining why one of these things won't help your research?

Re:I just have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799696)

... too slow to numerically solve the geomechanics problems I grapple with daily though...Having said that I'm a researcher who writes and uses high-performance parallel software daily.

Ah man, how many times have we told you to stop masturbating in public?

Re:I just have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800670)

Here is a preprint on cond-mat intended to solve your atomistic fracture simulation problem.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2456

Email the second author (she has a website at uni Luxembourg) and she will provide the a slightly more readable later revision of the paper. If you ask nicely we might even let you have beta code.

JTB

Re:I just have to ask (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799912)

Now if the just build a motherboard that supports a 16 of these on the board I'll be happy...for a while...

Larrabee (5, Interesting)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798776)

I believe this is the remnants of Intel's failed Larrabee chipset which was supposed to compete with Nvidia and ATI.

A nice article on the story behind Larrabee and it's failure:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/10/12/an-inconvenient-truth-intel-larrabee-story-revealed.aspx [brightsideofnews.com]

Re:Larrabee (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31798866)

Indeed. Or, to be more precise, it's their "Bangalore" chip which is basically the same thing as Larrabee without the graphics-specific subunits (texture unit) and perhaps the fancy-pants cache coherency / ring bus architecture.

Re:Larrabee (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800366)

That's not a particularly auspicious name for a chip. I'd assume that a "Bangalore" CPU would promise that it could get the work done twice as fast for half as much money due to "parallel architecture" - but you'd launch a program, only to discover that it actually took 10x as long, every instruction needed to be told *exactly* what to do, and the results were so full of errors that it took an additional non-Bangalore CPU working full time just to get things right.

Re:Larrabee (0)

jon3k (691256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800690)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA i'm dying over here. apparently the indians got moderator points today.

Re:Larrabee (2, Informative)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800754)

No, actually this is a separate effort entirely. This is a product of the same group which produced the "Polaris" 80-core chip, and is meant for research into communication models and memory architectures for massively parallel systems.

Larrabee is still ongoing as a separate project with a different focus. Larrabee is all about getting maximum throughput by adding a wide vector unit with a whole new instruction set to each x86 core. As far as anyone outside Intel knows, the plan is still to eventually release some Larrabee prototypes as-is (with the texture units and everything), and to develop a Larrabee 2 with the lessons learned that can actually compete directly with GeForce and Radeon in the graphics card market.

Re:Larrabee (5, Interesting)

jmknsd (1184359) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799960)

No, actually It is basically a bunch of Pentium 3s with cache coherency removed for a small chunk of on chip RAM, and a message passing interface for inter core communication. It has alot of interesting features, and is more usable than the 80 core chip they came out with a few years ago.

Re:Larrabee (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800038)

Yeah. that's what I was thinking too. It suddenly becomes a whole lot less exciting when you consider that it's just a 48 core first generation Pentium rather than a 48 core i7.

Re:Larrabee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800588)

From what I hear out the mouths of Intel employees (that are hands-on with products we buy and some you'll never hear about), Larrabee isn't considered officially dead. They're still working on it behind the scenes until they can pump out something everyone feels can go the distance for them.

bullshitter (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31798788)

>>> Sean Koehl, technology evangelist
Oh... a bullshitter

And it runs Linux (2, Informative)

Macka (9388) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798832)

According to the video they're running Linux on this thing with a custom kernel. No specific details on the changes they had to make to get it running yet.

Re:And it runs Linux (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798940)

According to the video they're running Linux on this thing with a custom kernel.

Is that custom-kerneled Linux open-sourced? o0

Re:And it runs Linux (1)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798968)

its just for the concept use of it, doubt they will release it

Re:And it runs Linux (2, Insightful)

klingens (147173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799046)

If they distribute it to the researchers they must release it to the researchers or commit a GPL violation.

Of course the researchers don't want to demand source since then they won't get freebies like this the next time Intel does such a Santa Claus imitation of distributing presents.

There's an interesting thought: what happens if you are a beta tester who has to sign a NDA to get something which includes GPL code. What takes precedence? Your NDA, or your right to demand source to the GPL stuff and redistribute it publically?

Re:And it runs Linux (2, Informative)

solevita (967690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799064)

or your right to demand source to the GPL stuff and redistribute it publically?

But this is all just wrong. There's no requirement to make GPL code public, you only need to make it available to the people that receive the binaries. So the researchers will likely be given some source code, but nobody has to release that to the rest of us.

Re:And it runs Linux (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799204)

So the researchers will likely be given some source code, but nobody has to release that to the rest of us.

Yes, none of the researchers has to release anything, but at the same time they have the right under the GPL to do so if they wish. So the right under the GPL conflicts with the probable NDA they signed. Can you sign away the rights you have under the GPL?

Re:And it runs Linux (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799644)

GPL says that if they don't have the right to redistribute for another reason, due to another license, then they don't have the right to redistribute the GPL code, IIRC.

Re:And it runs Linux (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799210)

Yes but the researchers can choose to redistribute the binaries, and then any of the recipients also have the right to receive the source.

Re:And it runs Linux (2, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799198)

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [gnu.org] , section 10:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

An entity transaction is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

So the way I see it, either they have the right to redistribute, or Intel would be committing copyright infringement.

And it would be an obvious loophole if a contract, NDA, EULA or anything else could trump the GPL, because then people would just distribute a GPL application with an additional bit saying "Actually you have to agree not to redistribute this application".

Re:And it runs Linux (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799342)

What takes precedence? Your NDA, or your right to demand source to the GPL stuff and redistribute it publically?

It's complicated. The GPL takes priority because the NDA is in violation of it, however the problem is that, by making you sign the NDA, Intel[1] is in violation of the GPL, but you do not have standing to sue them for it. The kernel developers could sue Intel for copyright infringement, by distributing their code without a valid license to do so. Intel could sue you for breach of the NDA. You, however, would have no recourse against Intel if you chose to distribute the code.

In fact, Intel could distribute the kernel under some terms other than the GPL, preventing you from distributing it legally. They would also be committing copyright infringement, but only the original copyright owners would have standing to sue, it wouldn't help you at all if they decided not to bother.

[1] Names of organisations in this post are hypothetical placeholders. I am not accusing Intel of GPL violation.

Re:And it runs Linux (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799928)


what happens if you are a beta tester who has to sign a NDA to get something which includes GPL code. What takes precedence?

The GPL doesn't allow further restrictions to be placed on it. If a company tried such a tactic they'd be in violation of the GPL and the copyright owner could sue. Remember that the GPL also protects the rights of the copyright holder.

640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (5, Funny)

youn (1516637) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798886)

maybe that's what bill gates meant when he said 640K should be enough... K as in Core .. it was a spelling mistake;)

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (3, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798930)

With the kinds of things Bill Gates did, I don't know if even 640' C would be enough.

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (1)

Oddscurity (1035974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798944)

Or 640 Kelvin?

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (2, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798946)

Too bad multiprocessing did not exist back then, as Intel had yet to invent the Core.

Multiprocessing (1)

krischik (781389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799738)

Sure about that? Sure that no Mainframe, VAX, Supercomputer had Multiprocessing at the time?

Re:Multiprocessing (2, Insightful)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799828)

*whoosh* I wrote my first SMP code in 2001, and it was the typical thing to do in scientific computing, had been for decades. Thus I occasionally like to comment on the recent years' "multicore" marketing phenomenon, where even some developers seem to think they have a completely new problem and they need completely new tools.

Re:Multiprocessing (1)

krischik (781389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799918)

So your comment was meant sarcastic. Well yes then it all makes sense. It was just that the joke was lost on me.

Re:Multiprocessing (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800720)

SMP doesn't necessarily mean multi-core. And I'd call 6 (Intel) and 12 (AMD) core CPU's officially a "multicore phenomenon".

Re:Multiprocessing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800920)

*whoosh*: Twat. We no longer do that.

1985, if we're bragging.

And I'm absolutely sure SMP could be dated to well before that.

- not usually AC, but parent deserves same.

--

Re:Multiprocessing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799908)

Mainframe, VAX, Supercomputer had Multiprocessing at the time?

No

Intel actually developed the first multi-core CPU and multi-processor systems at the behest of Steve Jobs as a condition for migrating OSX to the x86 platform. Further, it is speculated on good authority that Jobs personally headed up a crack engineering team sent to Intel expressly for the purpose of transitioning their fabs from the netburst to the core architecture. Seriously, study and learn.

Posted anonymously from my iPad at the Starbucks in Cupertino. You know the one.

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31798990)

maybe that's what bill gates meant when he said 640K should be enough... K as in Core .. it was a spelling mistake;)

very informative post.

pregnancy [pregnant9.com]

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799108)

6 Coors are typically enough, unless you throw a small party, then you'd want 48.

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (1)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799434)

no no, he meant Kores

http://www.kore-usa.com/ [kore-usa.com]

coz he needed 640 peddle-pushing monkeys to power his plans for power dominion.

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799444)

640 k cores, you mean.

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799612)

So, Intel, only 592 more cores to go, then it'll be enough for anybody. Get to work!

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799850)

Naw, he was just a KDE advocate years ahead of his time.

Re: 640 C (cores) should be enough for everybody (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800618)

Nah - you'd still need 639 of them to run antivirus.

Can you imagine... (3, Insightful)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798900)

...a Beowulf cluster of engineers awkwardly reading marketing information from a teleprompter?

More Cores (1)

lw7av (1734012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798924)

I hope this is not a marketing ploy. I am more interested in thread management and so can't wait for the benchmark reports; if they are made public.

Tilera (3, Informative)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31798942)

Might as well buy a Tilera if it's for research...
The only good thing about x86 is that it runs legacy Windows programs, but who cares about that in research?

Re:Tilera (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799006)

There's commercial geophysics programs that only run on Sparc and x86 - and some of them are dropping support for Sparc. The biggest x86 you can throw the software at gets the job done.
I'm sure there are similar stories in other fields.

Re:Tilera (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799024)

They're using clusters made of "on-the-shelf" hardware.
The 48-core Intel CPU is certainly not that.

Re:Tilera (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799654)

The only good thing about x86 is that it runs legacy Windows programs, but who cares about that in research?

Just because source code is available doesn't mean your problems are over. Even ironing out x86-64 (which millions of people can use) has taken years for the linux distros.

Re:Tilera (2, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799944)

Just because source code is available... Even ironing out x86-64 (which millions of people can use) has taken years for the linux distros.

Interesting. See, I was running 64 bit distros when Vista was still called Longhorn. I'm also quite sure it was a year or so before XP x64 edition was released. And everything ran great. The only problem I had was flash. Of course, I had the source for everything except for, you guessed it, flash. Imagine that.

Correction (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31798956)

"Just when you thought your 6-core chip was the fastest processor on the planet, Intel announces plans to ship systems equipped with an experimental 48-core CPU to a handful of lucky researchers sometime by the end of the second quarter.

Actually, the 8-core (Nehalem EX) and 12-core (Opteron "Magny-Cours") CPUs are already faster than your 6-core CPU. And oddly enough, this 48-core CPU is actually slower than your 6-core, 8-core, or 12-core CPUs. Intel didn't design the 48-core CPU to sell it. They did it as a research project/experiment to develop new ways of interconnecting so many processing cores. While there are technically 48 cores they are far less complex and slower performing than anything that Intel is shipping retail. If you go back a year or two you can find articles where Intel unveiled the CPU and talked about performance. This is simply an exercise in massively parallel CPU design, not an effort to make a faster CPU. That's why they are shipping them to researchers, so they can study and learn how to develop uses for such massively parallel systems.

Re:Correction (1)

Matrix14 (135171) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799158)

Actually, no one is making faster cores any more. We've hit a large technological roadblock in that area, due largely to heat dissipation issues. The fastest commercially available x86 chips have been a little under 4 GHz for about five years now. Current chip design focuses on heat and power issues and increasing the number of cores on the chip.

Re:Correction (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799214)

The fastest commercially available x86 chips have been a little under 4 GHz for about five years now.

Megahertz Myth. As far as I can tell, over the last 5 years individual cores have still been getting faster, just not with higher clock speeds.

Re:Correction (1)

Hells Ranger (305981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799326)

Megahertz Myth. As far as I can tell, over the last 5 years individual cores have still been getting faster, just not with higher clock speeds.

They are going faster by shortening the pipeline so you get a shorter execution time if you have branch. Also there are more execution unit. At first there was only 1 alu doing everything. Now in a standard cpu you find multiple dedicated unit for integer, logical and float operation. It allow to execute many operation in parallel, as long as there's no dependency between the data.

Re:Correction (1)

Down_in_the_Park (721993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799722)

Wouldn't they get even shorter interconnects between the cores, if the finally go into the third dimension? "Cube" would have a totally new meaning. they just have to solve these heat problems...

Re:Correction (2, Interesting)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799632)

Correct.

Clock frequency is worthless as a measure of CPU performance. Cores have never stopped getting faster.

For example: Each individual core in a 2.66Ghz i5-750 is more than twice as fast as a 3.8Ghz P4. Often many times faster than that, depending on the workload.

Re:Correction (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800728)

"Clock frequency is worthless as a measure of CPU performance."

Well you mean when comparing chips of different architectures, yes.

Re:Correction (1)

tius (455341) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799308)

And it won't be long before the "number of cores == speed" myth starts to show it's ugly head. Communications overhead eventually has a major impact on how much computing a processor/core can achieve; i.e. memory, I/O, inter-core. In more classical parallel implementations this is strongly felt around 8 processors/cores. However, today we have the benefit of shrinking high speed packet networks to the system and chip level, so I'm not sure where the knee in the performance curve is. If we're lucky the MHz myth/limit will help linearize performance/# of cores.

Re:Correction (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799352)

Intel didn't design the 48-core CPU to sell it

Actually, they did. Unfortunately, it was delayed and didn't work as well as they'd hoped and it would have been a complete flop in its original target market so they're shipping it as a research toy to try to recoup some of their investment.

Re:Correction (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800296)

More likely they've got this widget sitting around with all the requisite engineers raring to go. But it's a wrench that fits no bolt - they need research scientists with the type of problems that this solves to put a load on it, define the scope of its use and put it to work so they can refine the toolchain and broaden the scope.

"sytems" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31799066)

There is a typo in the headline.

48 stack traces . . . ? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799068)

So when analyzing a kernel dump caused by a deadlock with spin locks, I get to look at 48 stack traces, to find out who got what where, and who wants what they will never get?

Sounds like fun.

Ok, creative use of LPARs/Virtualization technologies could reduce the headaches. A friend of mine owned an ancient 6-cylinder Jaguar that spent more time in the repair shop than on the road. He was looking a at 12-cylinder also in the shop, when the chief mechanic commented, "You don't want that. A 12-cylinder just means 6 more headaches.

Sometimes I think about that comment with more CPUs/cores, when I am doing kernel development.

hypervisor (1)

pikine (771084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799596)

I believe a system like that is supposed to be supported by a hypervisor, which will run just one operating system per core, e.g. Barrelfish [barrelfish.org] .

Re:48 stack traces . . . ? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800062)

Only 48? Don't forget hyperthreading.

Video reminds me of ... (3, Funny)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799086)

3DFX, so powerful it's kind of ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmaYH1F6kho [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldiYYJNnQUk [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o72T8qQr7GE [youtube.com]

Great ad campaign.

Re:Video reminds me of ... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799820)

3DFX did deliver great GPU's to the market. When I finally upgraded from the Voodoo3 to the GeForce 4 ti (several generations beyond the voodoo3), that Voodoo *still* kicked its ass in multi-texturing fill rate.

Make what you want of that, but I say that 3DFX went under because of mismanagement, and not because the company couldn't deliver a great product. The company did in fact deliver a great product, right up to the end.

Re:Video reminds me of ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800242)

The end, apparently, being the Voodoo 3, since the 4 and 5 were terrible cards in general.

Re:Video reminds me of ... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800714)

..and by terrible you mean simply not #1?

The performance differences between VooDoo's and GeForce's, even at the end, wasn't that great overall. VooDoo's were great products all the way through to the end, when they went bankrupt through some bad decision making (cutting off the OEM's is ultimately what destroyed their revenue stream)

Re:Video reminds me of ... (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800590)

Guess what I found the other day? my 12MB Voodoo2 cards. It's missing the SLI cable, and would propably be destroyed by a modern graphics card anyways (I think my old Radeon 7000 would blow them out of the water, so a 50$ card probably will too)

I remember playing Quake 2 at ****1024X768**** on a K6-2 (266@337). I wonder if someones still hacks drivers for those cards?

Ghost of the Transputer (2, Interesting)

Mr Pippin (659094) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799354)

Sounds quite a bit like the INMOS Transputer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer [wikipedia.org]
Wonder what version of Occam (the programming language) will ship with it?

Re:Ghost of the Transputer (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799636)

All of the ones for Linux.

Resurrect BeOS (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799534)

Thread, thread, thread, thread! (Images of Ballmer hopping around). BeOS rocked back in the day because it APPEARED to be faster, because of its pervasive multithreading. Nowadays people are impressed when MS multithreads Win7 to make it more responsive. Imagine what you can do with 48 cores.

AMD already has this... (3, Informative)

Skaven04 (449705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799724)

AMD's new 12-core "Magny-Cours" Opteron parts will be available in 4P configurations with 48 cores and up to 512GB RAM, so...::yawn::

Re:AMD already has this... (3, Informative)

Skaven04 (449705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799764)

Actually 768GB RAM...12 dimms per socket (if an OEM chooses to max out the config) with 16GB DDR3 dimms == 768GB.

Supercomputer Only? I think not! (1)

NonSenseAgency (1759800) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799780)

Paul Lily's assertion: "That doesn't mean that you just wasted $1,100 and that your Core i7 980X is suddenly obsolete. As part of a research project, the 48-core part might never become commercially available, and if it did, it would be destined for mainframes and supercomputing tasks, not home desktops." is just plain wrong. Anyone who has been around computer development for any time at all knows that today's supercomputer is tomorrow's desktop. While it may not be this exact CPU, sooner or later 48 core CPUs or 96 core, or....WILL be on desktops.

48 cores (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31799784)

And still one external memory bus.

Re:48 cores (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800090)

Actually, 4 DDR3 memory controllers, each of which can independently talk to a bank of DDR3 memory.

Improper Adverb Usage (1)

DesertNomad (885798) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800072)

Alas, there's no such thing as "instantly", especially in multi-processor core systems. It takes all too long to move data around.

48 Core Mac Pro Rumors (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31800698)

Time to get the rumor mill going....

asynchronous processors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31800814)

what happened to asynchronous processors? still waiting

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...