What is Digg?138 Comments
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+127Oddly enough, this will be the first CPU which Vista will run smoothly on.
- stuartcow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+97@nixonrichard
i know! it's not like photoshop, HD movie editing and cg animation uses more then 300mhz..... only gamers care about fast processors.... - browwiw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+53But will it run Oregon Trail?
- sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+52Clockspeed is not the same as calculations per second
- AlanCayce, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49This is pointless with the current speed of RAM..
- IllBeBack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43Yeah, the Will It Blend comments are so old now, they're completely used up.
Please stab yourself in the eye the next time you think of typing that phrase.
Thannnnnnnnnkssss. - theteuton, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39Pfff... my basement full of Asians with ti-83's can process more calculations per second than that
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36Great SCOTT!!!
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Big deal, a 64-qubit quantum computer can calculate all that instantaneously and still have time to violate the laws of plausibility.
- Billiam627, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33This just in: it's already totally obsolete.
- knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30In my opinion, until a computer serves me breakfast, computing hasn't been 'revolutionized.'
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28And people say CELL is a bitch to program for...
- mozzep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27if that turns into another "but will it blend." Then i'm going to shoot you.
- rofflcopterr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29i think he meant "fastest chip evarrrr!!!11"
this should go in the "best evar!!1one!!" section of digg. - browwiw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I dunno. I never got my wagon across that goddam river.
and Mozzep...load your gun cause that's totally what I'm going for. I want to create my own internet meme before I die. - ryanjensen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Pretty big? How huge are your fingernails?
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26This is a little inaccurate. There are plenty of processors already available in GPUs that reach a teraflop.
Also, I know they mention in the article that software hasn't caught up to using 80 cores. But the question is, will software ever catch up to it? There is still the big question whether that is the design that we will adopt in the future, or if a better one will come along. Eventually multiple cores seem like the way to go but it is anything but set in stone. A breakthrough could lead us in a different direction.
I enjoy using a dual core AMD chip, and except for waiting for slow web pages to load, I rarely see the mouse cursor change to the "busy" sign. I can copy files from a USB, install a program and surf the web without any slow down. With all that multitasking being handled effortlessly with 2 cores, it makes me wonder if the average consumer will ever need more. - Gryfft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21What about the quantum computer being announced tomorrow? Haven't all conventional chips been made obsolete?
- thushan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19question everyone wants to know is... will it run solitaire?
- Sharshush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Stupid businessweek, Intel has no plans of even making this thing. I will go as far as to say it will never me made. You would actually need software to take core of all 80 cores, unless you want each fricken process to have its own. These aren't even able to run anything at all at the moment anyways, its just a chip design.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@Bahimiron - No, the quantum computer will be awesome AND crappy....at the same time.
- Bahimiron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13The quantum computer could be awesome.
Or it could be crappy.
So long as you never open the box, it will stay in a state of suspended quality. - nonannystate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Why oh why are we subjected to these best, funniest, worst, top, least, most, ugliest, prettiest, shiniest, happiest, awfulest posts
- MadOtaku, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I am laughing at you 15 years in advance: lol
- OUChevelleSS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Maybe he has God's thumbnail! I knew I hadn't seen the moon in a while..
- Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Fastest" isn't really a choice of a word. It just has more cores than any other chip, and even in the article it said that software needs to be able to handle this huge number of cores.
Plus, that thing is pretty big. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9a list of the most mediocre 10 mobile phones
new way to write a mediocre webpage
most average games of 2007
how to spend the right amount of money on items
woman has uneventful day
just doesnt have the same appeal sorry - shadowstorm, on 10/12/2007, -20/+28it's not the fastest chip EVER. buried as inaccurate.
- jetfuel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think I just read somewhere that a mid-top of the line video card can do that many calculations now easily.
- valiko75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@knightblade2oo4:
"In my opinion, until a computer serves me breakfast, computing hasn't been 'revolutionized.'"
What do you guys actually need? The computer should serve breakfasts, then you'd want it to eat it for you, to pull it out for you, and it'll end up having sex with your wife for you... Now that would be a REVOLUTION... !
And with the first comment in this thread I only wanted to say that the technology progress (unlike some of you guys), I don't know how fast it is or will be. - cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7On the front page yesterday
http://digg.com/tech_news/Intel_demonstrates_80_core_processor - Calculon64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Intel's R&D department can take the rest of the decade off.
- deuceswilde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Regardless of what the article claims it's wrong
Fastest: Plenty of chips have a higher clock speed
Powerful: High end GPUs have managed teraflop performance with far less than 80 cores and are available commercially
All it really succeeds in doing is having a ton of cores and very poor performance considering. I usually don't bitch about stories which make the front page multiple times but this has been on over and over in the last few days and no one seems to actually read the articles to find out it's not that impressive. - ElGuano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Again, massive dupe, and to add insult to injury, it's a research chip and Intel has reiterated several times that there are NO commercial plans to make anything like it anytime soon. They predict (vaguely) that the consumer market will top out at about 16 general purpose cores in the next couple of generations (and IMO even that sounds optimistic, as there's only so much that is highly parallelized). Buried.
- DigitalJesus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Holy *****, 80 cores!? is it April 1st already?
- Langhorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Woman has uneventful day"
pure gold! - dawgma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Gzero
Maybe you should look at this picture here: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/02/teraflop-80-cores-intel.jpg
From here: http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/11/intel-demonstrates-80-core-processor/ - grendel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And they think Ray Kurzweil is a nut job.
I would say he is right on target.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/next/human-20/2005/10/24/1130006035858.html - Xanadude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm sitting here busting my ass writing parallel algorithms to squeeze another 5% performance out of my existing hardware, and this damned thing mocks and laughs at me.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're great at reading the article.
You know what I'm great at? Blocking you. - 35263526, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One process to one core would actually be pretty nice. Task Manager says I've got 60 processes running right now, and this is a home PC. I could certainly see the usefulness of just that for large servers. Imagine a Term Serv where you could get one processor for each session? That'd be pretty damned useful for businesses using thin-client setups.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Actually, what we really need to do is get away from the Von Neumann architecture.
DNA computers FTW. - delta013, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Intel Builds the Fastest Chip Ever".
And hard drives will still be much slower... - lemur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Even if it were the fastest chip ever, it still wouldn't "revolutionize" computing. Speed it up, sure, but computing is still computing.
- metalstorm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are still a lot of bumps in the road for using a GPU as a CPU because the GPU is very efficient at what it does and not much else. I went to a speech from Nvidia about it 2 years ago and still haven't heard much success coming from it as of yet, but you never know.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@deuces - You've summed up what everyone else is assuming and you're all wrong. "Chip" isn't the same as "core". Chip means the whole thing, all the cores, working as one unit. So, it IS the fastest "chip" so far. It just isn't using the fastest "cores" ever. So, it is impressive, at least that they got 80 cores to work together.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you read up on it... this chip will not do much for anyone, since it is a research chip and likely will not be modified for commercial use, since it's essentially useless.
It can do multiply/accumulate operations on a massively parallel scale. It can't do anything else. It doesn't use a standard ISA. It's useless.
I think Intel is just trying to learn as much as possible about how to develop heavily multi-core, multi-threaded CPUs. - dBLiSS, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7FTA "Real-time physics calculations could let consumers create on-the-fly games that make even the cutting-edge motion-control techniques in Nintendo's Wii game console seem like child's play."
It's sentences like these that make me hate writers who have no clue about technology. - RicktheBrick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This technology ( http://www.nantero.com/mission.html ) will be a lot better for the average person than 80 cores on one chip. The technology is very fast non-volatile memory. It will result in instant on/off computers which will start at the same point they were at when they were turned off. It will result in longer battery life for lap tops as very little hard drive access will be needed. Their Internet site states they are making progress in producing the memory some time this year. This technology needs no advances in software to use it to its fullest extent too.
- scotty1024, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This chip has more in common with the ILM Render Farm than it does with a Core 2 Duo.
All the "cores" are networked on chip much like the systems in the ILM Render Farm. Each "core" is a very special purpose single precision floating point CPU which is mostly only good for rendering a part of one frame for Toy Story 3.
It isn't going to revolutionize much for anyone but super computer users and Render Farms.
*yawn* over hyped *yawn* -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 