×

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 10-Core Xeon Processors

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the you-may-now-kiss-the-cores dept.

Intel 128

MojoKid writes "Intel announced its new E-series of Xeon processors today, claiming that they will deliver nearly unparalleled advances in CPU performance and power efficiency. It has been just over a year since Santa Clara released its Nehalem-based octal-core Beckton processors. Whereas Beckton was focused entirely on performance and architectural efficiency, these new Xeons are more balanced. The new chips boost the core count to ten (up to 20 threads with HT enabled) and will be offered at a wide range of power envelopes. The new E7 series incorporates the benefits of the Sandy Bridge architecture, its support for new security processing instructions, and its improved power management technology. Intel has also baked in support for low-voltage DIMMs, which allows vendors to opt for 1.35v products."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

128 comments

unparalleled (5, Funny)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | about 3 years ago | (#35730318)

claiming that they will deliver nearly unparalleled advances in CPU performance

What's the point of having 10 cores then ?

Octal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731438)

Octal is a numerical system: adj: "relating to or using a system of numerical notation that has 8 rather than 10 as a base."
and
noun:"the octal system; octal notation."

Perhaps they meant:
octo- (also oct- before a vowel)
combining form
eight; having eight

Octal vs binary gives performance boost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731570)

I think working in octal will give a huge performance boost as compared to working in BINARY.

One would think that would have been touted as a major feature as going from on/off to on/2/3/4/5/6/7/off states is a nice break-through.

Each octal-bit now can now store 256 states vs on/off previously. Instantly increases memory density, bandwidth on the bus etc.

Re:Octal vs binary gives performance boost (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 3 years ago | (#35736108)

There's a good reason they aren't touting it. Turns out that making logic gates that can sense 8 different voltage levels is much more complicated, area-intensive, and slower than just being able to slam the output to one of the voltage rails as hard as you want/need. They tried and tried, but it was a dog all around.

Then came the real breakthrough -- the realization that you can encode the 8 states in octal using 3 normal binary signals, and so simulate an octal circuit, only faster and smaller!

But then calling it an "octal" chip seemed kinda silly, so they have mostly been keeping quiet about it and letting people think it had to do with the number of cores in certain platforms.

Re:unparalleled (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about 3 years ago | (#35731932)

claiming that they will deliver nearly unparalleled advances in CPU performance

What's the point of having 10 cores then ?

I laughed at NEARLY. Nearly unparalleled is not unparalleled. Not unparalleled is... well, paralleled.

Specs (4, Informative)

ustolemyname (1301665) | about 3 years ago | (#35730320)

130W TDB at 2.4 GHz, on the high end. Sadly, that information wasn't in the posted article. http://news.softpedia.com/news/More-Details-About-Intel-s-Upcoming-Xeon-E7-8800-CPU-Line-Emerge-183270.shtml [softpedia.com]

Re:Specs (1)

517714 (762276) | about 3 years ago | (#35730676)

SGI is going to use up to 256 of these in a supercomputer, bring some weenies and marshmallows.

Oracle’s 11g database can run 10 times faster at encryption tasks using the E7 series chips. Lots more performance comparisons and the 19 companies names Bull, Cisco, Cray, Dawning, Dell, Fujitsu, HP, Hitachi, Huawei, IBM, Inspur, Lenovo, NEC, Oracle, PowerLeader, Quanta Computer, SGI, SuperMicro, and Unisys [digitalninjastl.com]

Re:Specs (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 years ago | (#35732222)

SGI is going to use up to 256 of these in a supercomputer, bring some weenies and marshmallows.

130W seems impressively low for 10 fast cores (20 hyperthreads) if you ask me. Just a few years ago that would have been an entire cabinet full of P4's complete with a dozen power supplies, etc.

Re:Specs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731450)

Why is this better than a 12-core Opteron with quad-channel DDR3?

Re:Specs (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 3 years ago | (#35731888)

Because each of the 10 cores can handle 2 threads via hyper-threading (i.e. 20 vs 12). In addition you have AVX instructions which allow you to process 8 floats or 4 doubles in a single instruction (vs SSE's 4 floats/2 doubles). Assuming there are no bugs in their chipsets, it should be a bit of a beast...

Re:Specs (3)

Thundersnatch (671481) | about 3 years ago | (#35731970)

Why is this better than a 12-core Opteron with quad-channel DDR3?

Because each Intel core is a lot faster than each of the 12 cores on the latest Opterons. For many workloads, single-thread performance still matters. Search for "SPECint2006 Rate [spec.org]" results on the latest processors - a latest-gen Intel core is about twice as fast as an AMD Bulldozer core. 2*10 > 12

Re:Specs (1)

wisty (1335733) | about 3 years ago | (#35735620)

Because Intel chips are currently better than AMD chips, clock for clock.

The only place where AMD has an edge is Zacate (AMD integrated graphics + a duel core Bobcat - it's Atom killer), and *maybe* Llano (too early to tell).

Those are budget systems, which leverage AMD's ATI acquisition. Intel HD is miles ahead of the old Intel graphics, but I think Zacate is better.

However, those are low-power consumer chips. Not server chips. Intel still owns the server.

Unparalleled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730326)

Surely they will be *more* paralleled than any processor before them :-D

SB is no joke performance wise too (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#35730416)

I've got a SB desktop computer and it just screams. they made some sizable per-clock performance improvements. Also AES-NI is no joke. I am pretty amazed by the speed. Tryecrypt supports it and the benchmark difference is huge. With a 100MB buffer a pure software AES implementation benches at 649MB/sec on my system (553MB/sec for Twofish, 254MB/sec for Serpent). Same test with AES-NI on, 2.7GB/sec. That is 4.2x the speed.

Could be really useful for web servers, particularly if you are looking at going all SSL all the time.

crypto performance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35732252)

Could be really useful for web servers, particularly if you are looking at going all SSL all the time.

Sure, except you also have to worry about algorithms like RSA, DH, SHA1, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512, and providing a good source of random bits as well (hardware RNG).

That's one thing I like about Sun/Oracle's T-series chips: they have all the above algorithms. A ~4 year old T2 chip can do RC4 at 81 Gb/s, AES-128 at 44 Gb/s, and AES-256 at 31 Gb/s: that's enough to saturate 10 GigE connections (in both directions at times). SHA-256 at 41 Gb/s and RSA-2048 at 6400 op/s make for very fast web secure servers.

http://blogs.sun.com/sprack/entry/ultrasparc_t2_crypto_performance
http://blogs.sun.com/bmseer/entry/ultra_fast_cryptography_on_the

If companies web companies want to offer HTTPS, they just need to throw up a bunch of these as SSL proxies to feed back into your normal (Linux) app servers. Given that they run Unix (Solaris), you can probably leverage a configuration management system (e.g. Puppet) in a lot easier fashion than you could an appliance-based load balancer as well.

Re:SB is no joke performance wise too (2)

Carewolf (581105) | about 3 years ago | (#35732702)

I've got a SB desktop computer and it just screams.

You should clean or replace the fans then.

Re:SB is no joke performance wise too (1)

djdanlib (732853) | about 3 years ago | (#35733428)

Yeah, get rid of the fans you have and install some golf fans instead. They don't tend to scream. Or maybe some Lions fans, since they don't really have much to scream about?

Re:SB is no joke performance wise too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35732912)

Good for you, but the E7 Xeon is using Westmere cores unlike the FS claims.

fsdgfds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730448)

Something unexpected surprise

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

3 free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

exquisite watches 75$

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

jordan shoes $ 32

nike shox $ 32

Christan Audigier bikini $ 23

Ed Hardy Bikini $ 23

Sm ful short_t-shirt_woman $ 15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $ 16

Sandal $ 32

christian louboutin $ 80

Sunglass $ 15

COACH_Necklace $ 27

handbag $ 33

AF tank woman $ 17

puma slipper woman $ 30

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

Believe you will love it.

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730484)

Gotta love the milking of the consumer, giving them each tiny iteration, sucking them dry for every penny. Too bad all the real technologies are suppressed; that you pay for with your tax dollars and can not have.

Re:The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (1)

freeshoes (826204) | about 3 years ago | (#35730656)

Yeah that line of tin foil hats you have were in use 200 years ago.

Re:The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (3, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | about 3 years ago | (#35730744)

Have a read of what the NSA had in the 1950's and 60's at: Read up on ATLAS, ABEL http://www.governmentattic.org/3docs/NSA-HGPEDC_1964.pdf [governmentattic.org]

Re:The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (1)

freeshoes (826204) | about 3 years ago | (#35730936)

Nasa put men on the moon in the 60's so does that mean we should all be going on holiday (vacation) to the moon? Some technologies don't scale or are too expensive to mass produce.

Re:The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (2)

putaro (235078) | about 3 years ago | (#35732116)

I skimmed the document, I didn't see anything particularly exciting about ATLAS or ABEL. ABEL apparently had drum storage and core memory. There's no way any of the stuff in that document was running at 600MHz.

The Cray-1 ran at 100MHz and the NSA and national labs snatched them up. There would have been no market for the Cray if there were secret machines running at 600MHz.

I worked in supercomputing in the late 80's and early nineties. At that time it was still possible to assemble processors out of discrete components and outperform microprocessors. Relatively small teams could build really fast machines. By the mid nineties this was no longer possible. Today, the industrial base required to make a high performance processor is huge. The government can't have machines significantly faster than what's commercially available. There's not enough money in the black budget to fund it. That's why you see the Air Force making a supercomputer out of Playstations.

Re:The line of tinfoil hats (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 3 years ago | (#35731606)

Nah, that was probably 100 years ago courtesy of F. W. Woolworth. Before that everyone liked quality too much. Unhardened steel hats!

Re:The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730864)

Just to be clear, that means 50MHz when compared to a modern i7.

Re:The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#35731268)

First, MHz is a meaningless metric when independent of instruction set. Second, how much do you think the NSA was willing to pay for their 600MHz? I was talking to some IBM guys a bit about some of their high-end machine a while ago, and wondering who was actually buying them. Their reply was that they weren't allowed to disclose their customers, but 'most of them had three letter initials'. These machines had 1TB of RAM and up, and a price tag where optional features were measured in increments of millions of dollars. Some of their customers, apparently, bought the top-of-the-line model.

So, if you want to be able to use the same sort of hardware as the NSA, I'm pretty sure IBM or SGI would be happy to sell it to you. You'll find the dollar price will be at least 8 digits, but I'm sure you're happy to pay that, rather than let the technologies be 'suppressed'.

Re:The NSA was running at 600mhz in 1950 (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 3 years ago | (#35731384)

"high speed electronic static storage in the amount of 1,024 words. The word size was 36 bits instead of ATLAS I's 24, two address logic instead of one, more sophisticated instruction code, and the basis of all computing today, input-output program controlled instructions. Having two-address logic instead of one was very powerful for computers of this age. The new instruction codes included another first, a 'repeat' instruction, some arithmetic instructions, a scaling factor ability, and index jumping capability. " The NSA, then like now wanted to find data, numbers... then voices.

we can live without food but not without weapons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730490)

why don't you felonious billionerror fauxking murderers & thieves just vote yourselves in again, then turn off the lights, & go home (zion, or where ever). don't come back. we don't really need self-worshiping murderous crooks to tell us we can't afford to care for our children, sick & elderly, but can afford to facilitate the murder of others' children, elderly etc... for our 'defense'. the time to leave, has past. go. now.

with the genuine native american elders rising bird of prey leadership campaign, we'll get by. even better. goodbye.

another possibility would be to disarm, then shut yourselves down voluntarily. babys rule now.

day of placing them in the cage scheduled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730694)

just metaphorically as yet. they are still being built. the greatest story ever to be untold? tag team interviews from real people, guaranteed to generate facial expression images that are hard to focus on, yet impossible to forget?

so far, all of the highly eligible contestants have the same reply; 'we're not going in the cage, plus we still want to kill you, & almost everybody else'. so we'll see?

Cooling performance... required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730498)

This is what the craze of liquid cooling systems was all about. Time to buy a large radiator.

Could already buy 12 core AMD chips last year (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 3 years ago | (#35730536)

Even I've got a machine with four of those in it and I waited about a year for the price to go down.
processor : 47 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 16 model : 9 model name : AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6174 stepping : 1 cpu MHz : 2200.000 cache size : 512 KB physical id : 4 siblings : 12 core id : 5 cpu cores : 12 apicid : 75 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc nonstop_tsc pni cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy altmovcr8 abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw bogomips : 4399.82 TLB size : 1024 4K pages clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 48 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: ts ttp tm stc 100mhzsteps hwpstate [8]

Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#35730684)

Hopefully Bulldozer will fix it but right now, they don't do so well. Have a look at this HardOCP article on the new SB processors (http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review/3). They tossed in a high end 6 core AMD CPU too. It just gets killed. In many tests, it is below the older 4 core i7 CPUs, in pretty much all of them it is below the 4 core SBs and I don't see a one that it beats the 6 core i7 (the 980X).

AMD offers more cores, but their cores don't do as much. Don't buy in to core hype any more than MHz hype or anything else. More is not automatically better. Have to run benchmarks on it and see how it actually does.

Like I said, hopefully Bulldozer will change that. Hopefully it'll be competitive with Intel per core, per clock and so on. However right now Intel processors just kill.

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#35731294)

Bulldozer cores do even less - they're not quite SMT, but they're not quite full cores either (for example, pairs of them share an FPU). So, the number of Bulldozer cores is not quite equivalent to the number of i7 cores, and not quite equivalent to the number of i7 contexts (double the number of cores), but somewhere in the middle. I'm also not sure if they yet have any equivalent of Intel's Turbo Boost, which lets you overclock one core while powering down or underclocking the others, so single-threaded workloads (or a single CPU-bound thread in a multithreaded workload) get a boost.

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (2)

Anubis350 (772791) | about 3 years ago | (#35731786)

I agree with you about core counts, but about turbo boost... If you're putting this chip, let alone 2 or 4 of them, in a system where turbo boost would be helpful you're using the wrong chips

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (2)

markhahn (122033) | about 3 years ago | (#35732164)

no, we don't have any real info on how fast BD is yet. some technical papers on it indicate it's designed specifically for high clock while maintaining control on power dissipation. the shared FPU is somewhat faster than an unshared FPU would be, so this is a good choice, especially for code that's not always FPU-bound. and AMD has said that BD definitely has thermally-limited clock boosting.

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 3 years ago | (#35732812)

Slashdot featured a comparison of Intel's vs AMD's "Turbo" features [slashdot.org] just about a year ago now.

But the other poster is right.. you dont generally want turbo features on servers. This 10 core Intel server chip is in the same boat as AMD's 12 core server chips, as it will under-perform for single threaded tasks. These chips simply arent made for single-threaded performance.

AMD has been king of the multi-CPU solutions for awhile now [cpubenchmark.net] so we will have to wait and see how Intels new line will stack up in 4xCPU (40 cores / 80 threads) configurations vs AMD's current king 4xCPU (48 cores) solution.

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#35732724)

Yeah, Sandy Bridge has slaughtered AMD for the current generation.

I've been a long time AMD supporter, just because I don't want there to be only one kid on the block (competition is good and all that), but about three hours ago I just bought a 2600K and matching mobo and ram on Newegg. First Intel CPU I've bought since the old $90 Celeron 300A that was 50% overclockable out of the box.

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#35733620)

supporting some company because you want competition is a pretty bad was to have competition. Buy the bast bang for your buck, if only one player can deliver, so be it,.

As long as we continue to have good regulation so another competitor can rise up, all is good for the consumer.

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35734302)

One of the big advantages of a monopoly (or a dictatorship) is that you have the power to prevent competitors from rising up.

Also, when there's only one supplier, you have a single point of failure, both in production and imagination. Without real competition, there's no incentive to innovate or reduce prices.

Re:Unfortunately AMD's performance is lagging (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#35734656)

>>supporting some company because you want competition is a pretty bad was to have competition.

If you have two equally good products (say the AMD64 vs. whatever Intel had at the time), it doesn't matter particularly which one you buy, so I always chose to support AMD. As I said, if we were down only to Intel, it would be a bad thing in general.

>>Buy the bast bang for your buck

Didn't I say I just bought Sandy Bridge? It's head-and-shoulders above anything AMD has right now.

Re:Could already buy 12 core AMD chips last year (1)

Byrel (1991884) | about 3 years ago | (#35731526)

I've been drooling over these; still a bit out of a college student's budget for a single processor motherboard.

What do you do that can use that much parallelization? (Not that I have anything I could use it for; I just want it anyhow. :)

Re:Could already buy 12 core AMD chips last year (1)

Esteanil (710082) | about 3 years ago | (#35732032)

What do you do that can use that much parallelization?

Having just spent $130 in processing time on Amazon EC2 to render a 50 second movie in 13 hours, I'd really like to have a few of these...

Re:Could already buy 12 core AMD chips last year (1)

PitaBred (632671) | about 3 years ago | (#35734666)

Neat chips, but for $400 you can get an i5-2500K+motherboard. You won't get 10 cores, but it's still stupidly fast ;)

Re:Could already buy 12 core AMD chips last year (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#35733592)

IF this was only about cores, you might have a point. I mean, the cores have to word well, hand threads well and so on. The AMD multicores don't do that as well as Intel.
Also, we ware talking about servers needed for high utilization. For a basic PC, or even a 'gaming Rig' the difference will be measurable, but not likely noticeable.

E7 is not Sandy Bridge based (2)

Raven737 (1084619) | about 3 years ago | (#35730590)

The Quote

The new E7 series incorporates the benefits of Sandy Bridge

is a bit misleading, i think.

As far as i understood it uses the older Westmere EX architecture. So while it may have added instructions also available in the Sandy Bridge architecture, clock for clock it will likely be slower in most cases and probably won't reach the the clock speeds of Sandy Bridge based chips.

You do seem to be correct (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#35730994)

Though these do not seem to have all the Sandy Bridge technologies. In particular, AVX isn't listed. Thus is does not seem to have new SB instructions. Maybe they are talking about the improvements to the existing AES-NI instructions (SB is faster with those than older i7s) however it does not appear to have new extensions.

I don't know that AVX is of much use to servers, but it does mean this isn't SB architecture. Which means it is not as efficient per clock (SB made some good gains in that area, not that the original i7s aren't pretty efficient already). Also mean it probably doesn't have their new turbo boost tech. That isn't a huge deal, but is nice. It gives a wider range of boot options depending on how heavily cores are loaded.

On the older processors you find 1/1/1/2 is a common turbo boost spec. That means it can increase 100Mhz at most with 4, 3, or 2 cores loaded and 200MHz at most with 1 core loaded. For the SB processors it is 1/2/3/4. It's a bigger deal for mobile, since they are clocked slower and have bigger turbo boost levels, but still nice for desktops and servers. Means if something hits a single core hard, you can get a non-trivial clock boost.

Does make it less of an interesting announcement. More cores is cool and all, but SB is neat because of the new architecture. Apparently that is still to come for servers.

Re:You do seem to be correct (1)

Junta (36770) | about 3 years ago | (#35731336)

And *particularly* this series lags even "entry" level Xeons (the ones that go up to two sockets). Generally, about 6 months after an architecture makes it to desktop land the associated entry Xeons release, and then about six months after that the high-end Xeon implementation of that architecture comes out. Hence this announcement in the ballpark of six months after the low-end Xeon Westmeres (I think a bit longer, but too lazy to look up).

Re:You do seem to be correct (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 years ago | (#35732474)

I don't know that AVX is of much use to servers

For my scientific computing work, getting as many AVX units as possible onto a single motherboard is actually a big deal. So it would have actually been great if these 10-core chips had AVX.

Re: E7 is not Sandy Bridge based (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731648)

Supporting evidence?

Uncomplification. (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 3 years ago | (#35730686)

"...they will deliver nearly unparalleled advances in CPU performance..."

Good to hear. Hopefully the next iteration will be fully unparalled. Much easier to program for a single core.

Santa Claus? (0)

Gumbercules!! (1158841) | about 3 years ago | (#35730688)

Am I the only person who initially read that as "It has been just over a year since Santa Claus released its Nehalem-based..."?

Re:Santa Claus? (1)

lysdexia (897) | about 3 years ago | (#35733802)

I always see "Nehalem" as "Nifelheim". Some wish to put Christ back in Christmas, I want to put Santa Claus back in the Apocrypha.

I have a cpu of * cores. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730720)

1 core, 2 core, 4 core, 8 core, 16 core, 64 core, 128 core, 256 core, 512 core, 1024 core, 2048 core, 4096 core, 8192 core......

My xmas list. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | about 3 years ago | (#35730814)

Hardware accelerated SSH
Hardware accelerated LZMA

Thats about it.

Re:My xmas list. (1)

Trongy (64652) | about 3 years ago | (#35731356)

The AES instruction set [wikipedia.org] referred to as security processing instructions in the summary will accelereate ssh.

Re:My xmas list. (1)

yorugua (697900) | about 3 years ago | (#35731596)

So this CPU accelerates ssh? So it's a Linux/BSD/*ix accelerator? Microsoft won't be happy.

Re:My xmas list. (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 3 years ago | (#35732000)

It accelerates ssh in exactly the same way that fmul accelerates a calculator. I don't think microsoft will be concerned....

Re:My xmas list. (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | about 3 years ago | (#35733104)

The AES instruction set [wikipedia.org] referred to as security processing instructions in the summary will accelereate ssh.

Is this anything like the accelerators Sun put in the Niagara line a few years back?

Nice Try! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730854)

Still... looks to far away from SPARC's 128 threads.

Re:Nice Try! (1)

the linux geek (799780) | about 3 years ago | (#35735482)

Too bad the T3 has been killed on pretty much every industry-standard benchmark, against the full range of 12-core Opterons, 8-core Power7's, and 8-core Nehalem-EX...

DEAR SLASHDOT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35730878)

Dear Slashdot, I can't click through links or bring up the right click menu in comments any more. Also, the site has been getting slower and uglier with every 'upgrade' for years now. You need to either find a competent fucking web designer and do it right or revert back a couple versions and then STOP FUCKING AROUND WITH IT. This was never the best designed site in the world but at least it sort of worked before, I barely bother coming on here any more now because it's so bad.

And if you're gonna run around adding a bunch of useless crap to everything could you at least add an option for a WYSIWYG mode? And because you're a bunch of slack-jawed, drooling, smelly, flabby, basement-dwelling morons I want to spell it out clearly and say that it needs to be A MODE and NOT the ONLY MODE because I'm sure you'll fuck it up too and we'll have to go right back to raw html, but atleast then you're gigantic steaming heap of broken javascript would actually have a useful goal in mind and maybe the effort of making it work right would distract you idiots from fucking up the site and making a bunch of retarded dupes/slashvertisements...

Re:DEAR SLASHDOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35733010)

This shouldn't be modded -1. He's right. I can't click through links either (newest chrome). Shit's busted.

Web application development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731036)

very nice post.good information.
More info:- http://www.elantechnologies.com/services/web-apps

Oblig. comment: Imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731258)

...a Beowulf cluster of these!

It's not a power of 2 (4, Funny)

snsh (968808) | about 3 years ago | (#35731348)

Any CPU with where the number of cores is not a power of 2 makes me uncomfortable. Six cores, ten cores - it just feels wrong.

Re:It's not a power of 2 (1)

Henriok (6762) | about 3 years ago | (#35731396)

What about an uneven number, like the three core Xenon processor in Xbox 360?

Re:It's not a power of 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731556)

Or my Phenom II X3 720. Multithreaded software that had some type of engineering insight built into it should have no problem with the number of cores a processor has.

Re:It's not a power of 2 (1)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | about 3 years ago | (#35735158)

What about multithreaded software that DOESN'T have engineering insight built into it? (ie. almost all multithreaded software)

Re:It's not a power of 2 (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 3 years ago | (#35731610)

Dont worry, video encoding will just use any number of cores found. Your average game will use one core to keep the port to current generation of consoles simple.

Re:It's not a power of 2 (1)

adisakp (705706) | about 3 years ago | (#35736072)

Your average game will use one core to keep the port to current generation of consoles simple.

Ummm... that might have been a current or valid point 5-6 years ago with PS2 and XBOX but not today.

Speaking as a game programmer, most of the industry has been working for years on optimizing games for multiple cores. The current generation of consoles (XBOX 360 and PS3) are multicore and the next generation promises to have even more cores. Heck even handheld gaming systems (Sony NGP has 4 cores), portables, tablets (iPad2 is dual-core), and phones are going multicore.

Re:It's not a power of 2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35731640)

I'll take them off your hands.

Re:It's not a power of 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35734558)

Just don't take any corners at full speed and you should be fine.

Re:It's not a power of 2 (1)

Ripley (654) | about 3 years ago | (#35736390)

Sad. From the comments, it seems nobody even remembers what a hypercube computer is.

Next Mac Pro? (2)

bjb (3050) | about 3 years ago | (#35731778)

I bet the first production hardware we see this in is the 2011 Mac Pro. Apple seems to get the lead time on these things nowadays so they can once again claim "we're the shiniest" for several weeks.

I'm still quite content with my E5462-based 2008 model, thanks :)

Re:Next Mac Pro? (2)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 3 years ago | (#35732012)

I don't expect we'll see a Mac Pro announcement next week, as Apple's support for the AMD Radeon 69x0 cards is horribly broken in anything you can see outside of a lab in Cupertino. Announcing a system with "next generation performance" that uses previous generation video cards is something they are trying to get away from.

However, NAB is next week in Las Vegas, so who knows what they might do to get people to stop looking at CUDA-accelerated Adobe Premiere.

just what we need a $2500-$3000 1 cpu systems w (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 3 years ago | (#35732026)

just what we need a $2500-$3000 1 cpu system with a low-mid range video card and like 2GB ram at the base price.

Re:Next Mac Pro? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35735436)

It depends... There were 8 core xeons available when Apple released the latest mac pro's, yet Apple went with the 6 cores.

Although these 10 core sounds great. They might not have the same clock speeds as the current 6 cores.

Re:Next Mac Pro? (1)

the linux geek (799780) | about 3 years ago | (#35735506)

No. These will not be in the Mac Pro, just as Nehalem-EX wasn't - these are aimed heavily at multi-socket data-processing workloads. The Mac Pro will probably get the Xeon E5.

A note about power consumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35732704)

From one of the articles linked to in this thread: "Watts Consumed (lower is better)"

To me, that's not an unbiased opinion. I work for a power company, guys, and I don't like to see this slanderous talk on a website as prestigious as this one. Plus, it's still cold outside. I have the data to prove that my computer room is, on average, 10% warmer than the entire rest of my house - and it's on the bottom floor. I just want you all to remember that you can run your computer all day and it won't drive your gas bill up _one cent_

Yeah, but can it play Crysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35732784)

Seriously,

But when can i get one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35733016)

that goes to eleven?

octal-core? (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | about 3 years ago | (#35733076)

It has been just over a year since Santa Clara released its Nehalem-based octal-core Beckton processors

Huh? Why are the core operating on octal? Does this new version run in decimal?

imagine.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35733922)

imagine a Beowulf cluster of those..

Meh (1)

the linux geek (799780) | about 3 years ago | (#35735536)

First glance at benchmarks indicates that this is still a bit slower than Power7, and has a similar or more expensive price. Considering we're a few months away from the Power7+ kicker, I don't expect this to have much adoption outside Windows Server users.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...