Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Intel Pledges 80 Core Processor in 5 Years

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the thinking-of-the-gaming dept.

439

ZonkerWilliam writes "Intel has developed an 80 core processor with claims 'that can perform a trillion floating point operations per second.'" From the article: "CEO Paul Otellini held up a silicon wafer with the prototype chips before several thousand attendees at the Intel Developer Forum here on Tuesday. The chips are capable of exchanging data at a terabyte a second, Otellini said during a keynote speech. The company hopes to have these chips ready for commercial production within a five-year window."

cancel ×

439 comments

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

Ok, it HAS to be said... (3, Funny)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204761)

...Imagine a Beowolf cluster of those!

(Runs in shame.)

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16204847)

Well, if you had a thousand, you could compete with IBM's planned supercomputer, Roadrunner. That's supposed to run at about 1000 trillion flops isn't it?

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205153)

Why does this remind me of an announcement of the Osborne II while standing in front of a full warehouse of Osborne Is?

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205319)

On the other hand, the Osborne II never ran the risk of spontaneously inducing nuclear fusion in ambient atmosphere. (I don't even wanna imagine the heat output of 80 cores, even with the relentless march of technology.)

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205329)

Why does this remind me of an announcement of the Osborne II while standing in front of a full warehouse of Osborne Is?

Only maniacs are going to wait five years to buy a new computer because of this announcement.

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (2, Funny)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205189)

Finally, a platform that will run Vista.... RTM Bill, RTM!

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205401)

That's just for the Classic interface?!

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (5, Funny)

NiceRoundNumber (1000004) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205225)

...Imagine a Beowolf cluster of those!

I never petaflop I didn't like.

Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (1)

DarkShadeChaos (954173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205311)

But does it have hyper-threading support? eh? eh? :-D

OH SHI- (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16204775)

But it still can't tell me 1/0.

Re:OH SHI- (1)

I Like Pudding (323363) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205183)

F00F

Hey now... (1)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204777)

Exchanging data (data transfer) is not the same thing as operations per second. The post seems to either be confusing the two or stating that the chip does both. I guess I need to go read the article now and find out...

Re:Hey now... (5, Insightful)

myurr (468709) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204837)

Why oh why won't Intel spend their research dollars on something useful, like a bus architecture that can actually keep up with present performance levels?

Re:Hey now... (2, Insightful)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205047)

Why oh why won't Intel spend their research dollars on something useful, like a bus architecture that can actually keep up with present performance levels?

Yes, because if Intel is working on one thing, that means they can't work on anything else at all anymore...

Re:Hey now... (2, Informative)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205083)

Your wish has been granted [theregister.co.uk] .

Next!

Re:Hey now... (2, Funny)

myurr (468709) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205277)

Wicked... hmmm.... a castle full of nubile virgins all asking me to spank them?

Re:Hey now... (2, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205297)

like a bus architecture that can actually keep up with present performance levels?

There's nothing wrong with bus architecture in my opinion.

I stand at the stop, the digital sign says the bus will be along in 4 minutes.

4 minutes later the bus turns up.

I don't see what the problem is.

Re:Hey now... (1)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204857)

And now that I have read the article there still doesn't seem to be any clarification. If I had to bet it would be on the data transfer speed and not the ops/sec.

Re:Hey now... (2, Informative)

erotic piebald (449107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205071)

Otellini meant both flops and memory xfer rate.

Clarifiation from TFA:
"But the ultimate goal, as envisioned by Intel's terascale research prototype, is to enable a trillion floating-point operations per second--a teraflop--on a single chip."

Further clarification from TFA:
"Connecting chips directly to each other through tiny wires is called Through Silicon Vias, which Intel discussed in 2005. TSV will give the chip an aggregate memory bandwidth of 1 terabyte per second."

So... (4, Funny)

dark_15 (962590) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204785)

This will finally run Vista, right??? Maybe? Hopefully?

Re:So... (5, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205113)

This will finally run Vista, right?

And get here ahead of it, so we'll be ready.

KFG

Re:So... (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205135)

Heh. I agree.

The first thing I thought when I saw this was that they really ought to dial in Quad Core before boasting twenty times that.

Apparently, AMD will be peddling them withtin the next year.

Also given my experience with cooking three PIII/500s in the past due to over heat, I'd really like to hear how they plan to deal with power consumption and heat dissipation.

Re:So... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205305)

The first thing I thought when I saw this was that they really ought to dial in Quad Core before boasting twenty times that. Apparently, AMD will be peddling them withtin the next year.
From TFA:

As expected, Intel announced plans to have quad-core processors ready for its customers in November. An extremely fast Core 2 Extreme processor with four cores will be released then, and the newly named Core 2 Quad processor for mainstream desktops will follow in the first quarter of next year, Otellini said.

The quad-core server processors are on a similar trajectory, with a faster Xeon 5300 processor scheduled for November and a low-power Xeon slated for the first quarter. Intel's first quad-core processors are actually two of its dual-core Core architecture chips combined into a multichip package.

Re:So... (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205405)

This will finally run Vista, right???

God, I hope not. I can guarentee that mine won't.

It's the bandwidth, stupid! (4, Insightful)

DeathPenguin (449875) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204809)

Unfortunately, they'll all choke on a shared memory bus :-)

Re:It's the bandwidth, stupid! (1)

AP2k (991160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204901)

They are sooooo going to get bottlene....

Damn, you beat me to it. :D

Re:It's the bandwidth, stupid! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205003)

check out this fag [myspace.com]

76 too many cores? (1)

sinij (911942) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204827)

What massively parallel tasks would possibly need 80 cores? I can see uses for two, maybe 4 cores but what are advantages of 80 core chip as opposed to system with 40 2-core processors we can have now?

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204899)

You best ask this question Sun with their Niagara chip, not intel right now

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

thealsir (927362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204937)

Modularity. Do you know how huge and complicated a system with 40 dual core CPUs would be? There's always use for massively parallel processing and news like this is a godsend for data centers, which are currently suffering from power/heat limitations (and expense).

Just a few years ago, having a four-processor system meant getting a big motherboard or a custom system with multiple motherboards/processor cards. In 2007 you'll be able to put a quad-core CPU in a dinky mATX HTPC motherboard. In 2012 probably 80 cores.

Some things can't be split 80 ways, others can (say for your average "consumer"... heavily media-based or video-based tasks...)

Re:76 too many cores? (3, Insightful)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204977)

What massively parallel tasks would possibly need 80 cores?

Just as Gates couldn't imagine what anyone would want with more memory than 640KB, we can't imagine what people will do with 80 cores. I'm confident in predicting that they'll find ways to use every bit of that capacity and demand more.

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205009)

I could make a joke about windows Vista... but instead I will say that we will one day think nothing of having one core for each process that we're running and have a massively fast system (with solid state hard drives ; )

Also, technology can never develop too far, what if I want to set up my computer to talk to me like the one on the Enterprise (D)?... I do worry about the computers rebelling and trying to take over, though.

Not enough demand (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205017)

OK, IBM did get egg on their face for saying that the world only needed 5 computers, so it is dangerous to predict the future but 80 core chips seem absurd.

The costs to make use of 80 cores (you're going to need hugely complex chips and hugely complex memory buses) mean that these chips will be severe overkill for PCs and will be outside any typical user's price range. They're only going to be useful for a a few servers in very niche applications. If there's only demand for, say, 10,000 of these chips in the world then they're going to be extremely expensive.

I smell marketing horseshit. I think they're just saying this to get people to start thinking of multi-core options. Most people don't see the need for multi-core (even 2 core) systems. By saying you'll get 80 cores in 5 years makes people start thinking that they should start using 2 or 4 cores now.

Re:Not enough demand (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205151)

Marketing HS?

Now who sounds like IBM?

I can imagine at least 10, 50 or 100 at every college in the country, more for technical schools. That right there is a million units.

Then throw in the scientific community, the numerical analysis community (aka banks & wall street), and anyone else who wants to get their hands on cheap teraflops and are used to proprietary operating systems.

Now multiple those figures times the number of countries in the world that have the same needs.

That's a multi-million number. Assuming they can provide low cost teraflows on a few square centimeters of silicon, it's a good thing.

Rather than being cynical because it is Intel and not AMD or Cell or Transmeta making the announcment, why not hope they succeed.

Oh, right, /. I forgot...

Re:Not enough demand (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205165)

The costs to make use of 80 cores (you're going to need hugely complex chips and hugely complex memory buses) mean that these chips will be severe overkill for PCs and will be outside any typical user's price range.
Unless the complexity makes the manufacturing vastly expensive, rather than just the development, this won't be true: the more widely its sold, the less of a development premium there will be, because the development costs will be spread more widely.
I smell marketing horseshit. I think they're just saying this to get people to start thinking of multi-core options. Most people don't see the need for multi-core (even 2 core) systems.
Most people probably won't even know (or care) how many cores there computer has, any more than they know how many transitors it has. People who make computers understand the value of multicore systems and are adopting dual core systems for consumer PCs without problem, and will no doubt do the same thing with the quad core systems Intel plans to release soon, and even more cores as they become available.

Amdahl's Law (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205357)

The major limitation to the effectiveness multi-cores is somewhat described in Amdahl's Law.

Things like memory bandwidth are already constraining 2-core chips. The only way to effectively mitigate this is to make wider bus paths. That's relatively easy for 2 core chips, but to get any benefit from 80-core chips you're going to need 40x the memory bandwidth you have now. That means huge pin-outs, huge amounts of RAM, huge everything.

These are not going to be systems that every college department can afford.

Sure people won't care if the cores are there, but they will care about the price if that impacts on the whole system cost.

Re:Not enough demand (1)

kiick (102190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205313)

> but 80 core chips seem absurd.

If we want to continue to have faster and faster CPUs, then multiple cores is the way to
go. You can only squeeze so many MHz out of a chip (as Intel found out at about 4Ghz).
Cache and I/O bandwidth will only get you so far. However, since most operating systems
are multi-tasking, having multiple cores is a win. And yes, you as a home PC user with your screen saver on may not see full use of all those cores, but believe it, there WILL be applications that can take advantage of them. Programs expand to fill the CPU cycles available. Besides, SETI@home would certainly benefit ;).

Re:Not enough demand (1)

why-is-it (318134) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205317)

By saying you'll get 80 cores in 5 years makes people start thinking that they should start using 2 or 4 cores now.

Do we have compilers optimized for this sort of architecture today?

I expect that lots of work has been done so that multiple instances of Oracle-RAC run properly on an E25K, but that seems like a fairly specific scenario. Does Intel have a C compiler that was designed for miiltiple CPU systems? What about GCC?

If all they did was increase clock speeds, we wouldn't need as many major advancements in compiler theory. When you want the whole world to be multi-core, everything changes, unless each process has it's own CPU.

Re:76 too many cores? (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205039)

What massively parallel tasks would possibly need 80 cores?


I'm not sure this is 80 general-purpose processing cores: the article claims that there are "80 floating point cores". Clearly, the big selling points of the chip are, in Intel's view, its data transfer at 1 TB/sec, and its floating point speed at 1 TFLOP.

I can see uses for two, maybe 4 cores but what are advantages of 80 core chip as opposed to system with 40 2-core processors we can have now?


An 80-core chip with RAM attached directly to the processor chip, as TFA discusses, is going to have an advantage in transferring data between cores, and plus it'll probably be a lot smaller. Than 40 dual core (or 20 quad core) chips.

And cheaper... (1)

partisanX (1001690) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205115)

An 80-core chip with RAM attached directly to the processor chip, as TFA discusses, is going to have an advantage in transferring data between cores, and plus it'll probably be a lot smaller. Than 40 dual core (or 20 quad core) chips.

It would quite likely be cheaper and consume less power.

Re:And cheaper... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205369)

It would quite likely be cheaper and consume less power.
That too. And, consequently, probably release less heat, which is a pretty big concern, too.

Re:76 too many cores? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205147)

Check out this FAG!!! [myspace.com]

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205167)

In fact the summary and the write up are very confusing or even slightly wrong. According to what I took from the keynote, the architecture is something similar clearspeed [clearspeed.com] which already has more than 80 parallel floating point cores.

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

gimplar (913105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205127)

Space for one? Latency? Power consumption? Having 40 dual cores trying to work on the same problem may mean tons of inter-CPU communication. I doubt you can fit 40 CPUs on the same motherboard so much of this communication would have to be done through some other medium. For the sake of conversation lets say you can communicate between CPUs via a PCI-backbone (or PCI-X or whatever you want). That's still a lot of metal to drive, then you've got to deal with bus saturation (Unless you figure out a way to do a cross-bar network..which isn't really feasible due to the limited number of I/O pins on a CPU die). So a 40-dual core system would have 1.) Nasty latency due to signal propogation times 2.) Probably massive overhead as the CPUs will now have to use MPI to communicate information 3.) Horrible power efficiency in comparison to an 80 core system. The capacitence requirement of your PCI-bus is much higher since it has a lot more metal. This makes power consumption a rather large issue. 4.)Really different programming methodology. To elaborate 4, now it's not really possible for a compiler to figure out what to do. I don't claim to be an expert in PCA but in a 40-dual core setup I expect that the parallelism of the system needs to be extracted by the programmer..rather than the compiler. With an 80 core single die system the drive for creating a parallizing compiler would be massive (and lucrative). This would benefit more than just the uP market, I think the reconfigurable computing world would benefit greatly from knowlege base a parallizing compiler would create... but I digress.

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205197)

They will be capable of running Duke Nukem Forever. :-)

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205257)

Graphics, real time video editing - like deblurring or removing shaking, cracking DRM. Lots of uses for 80 cores.

Re:76 too many cores? (3, Interesting)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205271)

How many processes are running on your machine?

A basic strategy would be for the OS to devote each process to its own processor.

This would reduce the need for TLB/cache flushes or eliminate context switches entirely. The whole machine would be really snappy.

That said, for a desktop machine, this is a huge amount of overkill, but with economies of scale being what they are, we'll probably have this power available soon.

What I'd like to see more though, is extra functionality in hardware rather than more of it. Wouldn't it be great if hardware was able to handle some of the things an OS is now used for, like memory (de)allocation? Or if we could tag memory according to type? Or if there were finer-grained controls than page-level?

Re:76 too many cores? (1, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205295)

80-core CPUs = cheaper "low-end" 16-core ones

Well, the blurb is a little misleading. (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205337)

From TFA:

Intel's prototype uses 80 floating-point cores, each running at 3.16GHz, said Justin Rattner, Intel's chief technology officer

So it's some sort of Pentium-ish beastie with 80 floating point units, not an 80 core CPU.

Although, I could easily find a use for either one. Just off the top of my head, an 80 FPU machine would be an excellent science/simulation machine. And it'd probably make some fairly decent graphics for games. You could use that much floating point for voice recognition without taxing your machine very much. You wouldn't need a special graphics card anymore either - just allocate a dozen or so FPU units to plotting 3D graphics and simply stamping them into a display memory buffer.

An 80 core machine would be excellent for system simulation. Imagine things like Wine and VMware running with that much elbow room. Or you could split the taskload up for networked applications like WETA's render lab. The whole render lab would fit on a desktop.

More computing power is always better. Well, until The Terminator finally makes it back to Intel's lab and smashes the prototype, anyways.

Re:76 too many cores? (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205365)

What massively parallel tasks would possibly need 80 cores?

Personally I think they should add another 580. That should be enough... you know the rest.

Just as they,,,, (5, Insightful)

klingens (147173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204835)

promised us 8-10Ghz Pentium4 CPUs when they started with the P4 "Willamette"? Or how they promised us 5GHz Prescotts?

I'll rather wait and see what I can actually buy in 5 years. No need to trust a vendor so far in the future what they can do.

When will HDD's catch up (2, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204863)

Faster processors are great, but when will we see massive improvements in data storage...

Re:When will HDD's catch up (1)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205099)

Umm, soon, that's what the whole solid state HDD movement is about...

PAIIINNN (4, Insightful)

Tester (591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204865)

Imagine the pain of having to write a functional applications with so many cores. I hope the interconnect will be very very fast. Otherwise writing massively scalable parallel algorithms will be masssively painful. And with so many cores, one will need multiple independants memory banks with some kind of NUMA. And writing apps for those things isn't fun. You have to spend so much time caring about the parallel stuff instead of caring about the problem.

Re:PAIIINNN (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205377)

Not really, as long as you pick the right tools for the job. Writing code for such a machine using a threaded model would obviously be stupid. Writing it in a asynchronous CSP-based language like Erlang is much easier. There's a language I saw a presentation from some guys at IBM on that looks potentially even more promising, although I can't recall its name at the moment.

As with anything else in the last 10 years, if you try to pretend you're still writing code for a PDP-11, you'll have problems. If you don't, you'll be fine.

Oh, and for the record the code I'm working on at the moment is run on a 64-processor machine.

80 cores processor (2, Funny)

Refelian (923767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204867)

That's hot!

(/ducks)

Re:80 cores processor (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205079)

Your not looking on the bright side. With this, your server rack could double as a pizza oven.

Power Consumption (2, Insightful)

necrodeep (96704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204869)

I seriously hope that power consumption and heat disipation are really attacked before these things come out. Can you imagine needing a 200-amp service and liquid nitrogen cooling for something like that right now?

Re:Power Consumption (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205205)

Can you imagine needing a 200-amp service and liquid nitrogen cooling for something like that right now?

No, but you'll need it to surf Web 3.0

KFG

Re:Power Consumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205379)

The FAGS!!! have come out of the tubes internets to talk.

Apple and Microsoft and BSD better hurry and scale (4, Interesting)

Lost+Found (844289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204895)

This is hilarious, because if this goes out on the market there's not going to be many operating systems capable of scheduling on that many chips usefully. OS X can't do it, Windows can't do it, and nor can BSD. But Linux has been scheduling on systems with up to 1,024 processors already :)

Re:Apple and Microsoft and BSD better hurry and sc (2, Insightful)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205007)


Wow, good point. I bet Intel never once stopped to think about THAT.

I sincerely doubt this will make it anywhere near Fry's or CompUSA, assuming it launches in +5 years. Most likely academic, corporate (think of the old days and mainframe number crunchers on wallstreet), and scientific.

Simply cheap teraflops for custom applications.

Of course, everyone thought it was a great idea when Cell announced they could do 64 or more cores. But since this is /. versus Intel, everything has to be a joke, right?

Re:Apple and Microsoft and BSD better hurry and sc (4, Informative)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205247)

Scheduling isn't a one size fits all process. What works at 4 cores doesn't work at 40 and so on. As for other operating systems, FreeBSD has been working quite actively on getting Niagras working well with their sparc64 port. I've been saying it didn't make sense until this announcement. I figured we'd have no more than 8 cores in 5 years. We'll see what really happens.

The BSD projects, Apple and Microsoft have five years. Microsoft announced awhile back they want to work on supercomputing versions of windows. Perhaps they will have something by then. Apple and Intel are bed partners now. I'm sure intel will help them.

What this announcement really means is that computer programmers must learn how to break up problems more effectively to take advantage of threading. Computer science programs need to start teaching this shit. A quick you can do it, go get a master's degree to learn more isn't going to cut it anymore. There's no going back now.

Shame BeOS Died... (5, Informative)

Rhys (96510) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204911)

With the heavily threaded nature of BeOS, even demanding apps would really fly on the quad+ core cpus that are preparing to take over the world.

Not that you couldn't do threading right in Windows, OS X, or Linux. But BeOS made it practically mandatory: each window was a new thread, as well as an application-level thread. Plus any others you wanted to create. So to make a crappy application that locks up when it is trying to do something (like update the state of 500+ nodes in a list; ARD3 I'm looking at you) actually took skill and dedication. The default state tended to be applications that wouldn't lockup while they worked, which is really nice.

Re:Shame BeOS Died... (3, Funny)

mindsuck (607395) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205203)

This 80-core processor would probably also benefit from the is_computer_on_fire() [uiuc.edu] syscall available on BeOS.

80 FPUs, not Cores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16204919)

A chip with 80 Floating Point Units is not the same as a chip with 80 Cores.

Moores Law (0)

dontbflat (994444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204949)

Doesnt moores law state speed will double every 18 months? Lets see. We have 2 cores now. 4 in 18 months, 8 in 36 months, 16 in 52 months, 32 in 68 months.....wait a min. 5 years is 60 months. Are they going to go faster than moores law. I doubt it.

Lets wait and see, but I think this is just an empty promise.

Re:Moores Law (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205069)

Moore's Law is really nothing of the sort - it was simply an empirical observation and prediction made by Moore that has so far been very consistant.

Re:Moores Law (3, Insightful)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205123)

Moore's law states that transistor density doubles every 24 months, it says nothing about speed or number of cores.

Re:Moores Law (4, Informative)

milamber3 (173273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205137)

Moore's law says nothing about speed, that is a common error. IIRC he made a general statement about the number of transistors that could be in a defined area doubling every 2 years and that was later changed to 18 months. It also had to do with cost of transistors I believe.

Re:Moores Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205227)

Intel will have 4 cores out by the end of the year, so you can push your schedule up a bit. It fits within Moore's Law.

Gillette Razor Joke.. (5, Funny)

SevenHands (984677) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204965)

In other news, Gillette pledges a razor with 81 micro blades. 80 blades are individually controlled via Intel's new 80 core processor. The 81st blade is available just because..

Re:Gillette Razor Joke.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205181)

The 81st blade is for sideburns!

Re:Gillette Razor Joke.. (1)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205293)

Good point. Can we coin SevenHand's law: the number of Gillette blades increases at the same rate as Intel cores.

Re:Gillette Razor Joke.. (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205349)

No no no - while Moore's law is merely exponential, Gillette's razor blades are on a hyperbolic curve. They'll go to infinity by 2015. The Economist said so! [livejournal.com] .

...in the next 5 years. (2, Funny)

pjludlow (707302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204973)

Just in time for Vista!

Interesting (1)

gimplar (913105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16204985)

Seems like (classical) microprocessor computing is quickly converging with reconfigurable computing. In the embedded systems world there has been a recent emergence of something OTHER than a re-hash of FPGAs. FPOAs seem to be the most prominent one and approach reconfigurable computing through a heterogenous array of ASICs which come in three flavors : Multiply accumulators, general purpose ALUs and speedy register files (which can be configured as a FIFO,RAM or sequental read random write memory block).
Quite a departure from the relatively homogenous composition of an FPGA which is basically a bunch of SRAMs connected with each other and a ton of switches.

Pretty soon we should be seeing FPGAs acting as co-processors..oh wait..that's already possible (see XD1000 which has an Opteron and an Altera Stratix(?) communicating via hypertransport). Or maybe we'll start seeing micrprocessors acting as a periphereal to an FPGA ..oh wait that's already happened with embedded powerPCs in Xilinx's Virtex 2 and Virtex 4's.

Vista Delay to be announced shortly (1)

charlesnw (843045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205013)

Ok. We now know Vista will be 5 years late. :)

Are all cores created equal? (2, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205019)

Today, a 2 CPU x 2core computer can actually be slower than a 2x1 or 1x2 core for certain "cherry picked to be hard" operations due to the OS making incorrect assumptions about things like shared/unshared cache - 2 cores on the same chip may share cache, two on different chips may not - and other issues related to the fact that not all cores are equal as seen by the other cores.

In an 80-core environment, there will likely be inequalities due to chip-real-estate issues and other considerations. The question is, will these impacts be felt at the code level, or will the chips be designed to make these differences invisible? If the former, will the OSes be designed to use the cores efficiently, or will they simply see "80 cores" and, out of ignorance, make poor decisions when allocating tasks to various cores? If the latter, what performance penalty will be incurred?

One for user, 79 for DRM processes (1)

jkinney3 (535278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205051)

I can just hear Microsoft gloating over this "Wow! Now we can add all the DRM our real [riaa.com] customers [mpaa.org] want without any apparent performance penalty."
"Quick, run out and buy stock in every power and cooling company you can!".
Of course the malware will be able to fly faster on the new Microsft DRM 2010 Media Center release (due in 2012)

Unfortunately (1)

dduardo (592868) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205057)

It will take another 15-20 years for software to catch up.

That's mindless rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205235)

It will take another 15-20 years for software to catch up.

That's what every hardware engineer says when CPUs progress from being way, way too slow to way too slow.

Are you happy with the speed of your computer? I'm not. I'm still waiting for the hardware to catch up with the demands of last year's software.

Re:Unfortunately (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205241)

why is that unfortunate? software and hardware have always run at pretty much the same pace, but I would rather have an 80 core processor which I can keep for 10 years and update my OS to take advantage of more of the cores as time goes by than have to buy a whole new system every 3 years at least.

One day someone will say.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205061)

512 cores should be enough for anyone.

Hahahahah! (0)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205095)

Gosh, do these guys *ever* learn? I still fill the pain from the broken promise on the 10GHz P4.

We had to have that 10GHz Pentium somewhere around this time I think. Reality? We don't even have Pentium anymore, after they redesigned it.

Intel wants to wow everybody with flashy predictions about their own future, but Intel, but what people care about is whaat they are selling *now*.

They seemed on the right path with Core 1/2, but it seems they are back to the silly "I have more of feature X" marketing.

You hear that splashing sound? (0, Flamebait)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205145)

That's the sound of 5 million geeks ejaculating simultaneously...

YOU oF+AIL IT (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205175)

perfOrm keeping [goat.cx]

Sure... 80 cores later.... and still on Windows (1)

VictimOfGrief (979985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205199)

It's not the hardware that is behind the times it's the god damn software. -VoG-

I guess the new saying will be... (2, Funny)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205221)

640 cores ought to be enough for everybody

Suuuure (1)

Kirlian (989378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205239)

I trust Intel in everything they promise.
They are great, that's why I'm posting this on a 5.0 Ghz Pentium 4 processor and... oh wait

A little better clarification (1)

ZonkerWilliam (953437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205245)

Look here for more information on the technical specs; http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jht ml;jsessionid=13DOWA104O1JYQSNDLSCKHA?articleID=19 3005741 [eetimes.com] From the article: "When combined with our recent breakthroughs in silicon photonics, these experimental chips address the three major requirements for terascale computing -- teraOPS of performance, terabytes-per-second of memory bandwidth, and terabits-per-second of I/O capacity," Rattner said in a statement. "While any commercial application of these technologies is years away, it is an exciting first step in bringing tera-scale performance to PCs and servers." I'm still in the "believe it when I see it" phase.

this is not a test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16205251)

Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop^H^H^H^H^H ripped off post from someone else's blog.

overboard? (1)

treak007 (985345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205321)

Isn't it kind of immature for a company to think "hmm, we have had relative sucess with dual core processors over our competitors. . so lets fit as many cores into a mobo as possible . . .that will get amd" If I recall properly, didn't the same thing happen with resistors on circuit boards back when radios and such were new? People just kept trying to fit more and more on a board rather then researching better technology. While I believe that multi-core technology needs to be developed further, there are also other things for intel to be researching.

It it the CELL scaled way up! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205373)

Really if your read the story it is 80 floating point cores! It would be be ideal for many graphics, simulation, and general DSP jobs.
What it isn't is 80 CPU cores.
Really interesting research but not likely to show up in your PC anytime soon.
With all these multi core chips I am waiting for more specialized cores to start being included on the die.
After all a standard Notebook will have a CPU, GPU and usually a DSP for WiFI. Seems like linking them all with something like AMDs Hyper transport could offer some real performance gains. Imagine a core optimised for TCP/IP to go along with the DSPs audio and wifi and your GPU all closely tied to together with Hyper-Transport links.

Apple should have bought BeOS (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205381)

... not for the high price Gasse wanted for it, but for what 3COM got it for. They need that pervasive multi-threading now more than ever. NEXT was good and all, but are they really going to be able to backwardly refine the whole bit? Oh well, at least they've got plenty of old BeOS employees. The pervasive beach-balls however make me wonder what they're doing all day, new kernel?

Seems like a solution... (1)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205387)

...in search of a problem. But don't you worry, those problems will come along soon.

Big deal (1)

wetfeetl33t (935949) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205403)

And AMD recently promised the development of an 81 core processor...

That's 80 FP cores per processor (4, Insightful)

maynard (3337) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205415)

not 80 general purpose integer cores. They're essentially copying the Cell design with large numbers of DSPs each of which has a local store RAM burned onto the main chip. Is this a good idea? Guess we'll find out with the Cell. What interests me most about this announcement is not the computing potential from such a strategy, but that it's an obvious response to IBM and Sony technology.

$$$ for Oracle (5, Funny)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205419)

You fools! Do you have any clue how much Oracle licenses will cost for this thing?

More hot air and wind (1)

thorkyl (739500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16205427)

Can you imagine the heat sink and the fan?

You could peal the paint off the cubicle with that kind of heat and wind
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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