What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
136 Comments
- joebrodie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1284-core and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth...
- awbrown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+81Finally, a reason to upgrae from my P166 :)
- OverThere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+76Does it come with some sort of liquid nitrogen cooling system?
How about a small nuclear reactor to power it? - ItNeverEnds, on 10/12/2007, -4/+55I'll wait for the 100-core model.
- Ndiggnation, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49We'll never need more than 640 cores..
- Aero1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47the ps3 will be delayed till then for the anticipatation of such chip in order to play Ridge Racer 8
- imStanny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38Let's not get hasty. 10 years ago Intel also told us we'd have 10ghz chips by now.
- ZepFloyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34@ bigtrouble77:
Im still waiting for Duke Nukem Forever... - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Mr. Fusion should be available by then, why would they need all of that fancy equipment?
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29I hope the cores are specialized. 80 general purpose cores is a bit overkill unless you can virtualize one core. Myself I'd rather see a photoshop core, a dvd encoding core, a windows and or linux kernal core etc.
- bhigh24, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Porn doesn't ruin performance, it just makes your mouse sticky.
- bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I'm still waiting on the promised 10ghz PIV.
- mywhitenoise, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24They can't figure out something better than cores by then?
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18There is NO SUCH THING as REVERSE HYPERTHREADING.
Reverse Hyperthreading doesn't even MEAN anything, it makes utterly ZERO sense. - digga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14That's just mindless Yugo-bashing!!
- drrlvn, on 01/18/2009, -0/+13The article about new 4 core processors that Intel introduced a little while ago said that one of the cool thing about them is that they require about as much power as a regular P4 chip. If that was true (assuming I understood the article) then power will not be the problem with this 80 core monster.
- ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Hey, they still need product placement in the future.
- DrStankus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It'll only take 1.21 Jigawatts.
You'll need one of:
1) Plutonium
2) Lightning
3) Mr. Fusion - IanPhillips, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Also, besides power requirements and cooling, what about the programming factor. It doesn't help too much to have 80 cores when only a few programs that may be able to handle a couple of cores...
Off topic, but about Mr. Fusion. Did anyone else notice that in back to the future 2, there was Mr. Fusion around, but cars still needed to get gas from the robotic Texaco station? - funkpucker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11extend the APIs into the chip architecture?
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14if you're right about AMD's 'reverse hyperthreading' technology, then i'm ok with more cores. otherwise, i don't like it.
i have a 64 X2 at work, and i hate seeing my single-threaded applications get pinned at 50% cpu usage, while the second core is sitting there twiddling its thumbs. with 80 cores, a single-threaded application would only be able to use 1.25% of the cpu's total power.
1 letter + 1 word = F that - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9And they're at what, 4GHz?
I'll take ~30 cores in five years any ***** day of the week. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11No, actually, these will be using the as-yet-unannounced "Core 3" architecture. Additionaly, there are actually 6 more cores in addition to the announced 80, which are used for task management.
As such, they'll be calling this the Core 386. - Justin6512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8haha, yeah we'll see what happens in 20 years. Our children (or grand children) will be like, I have this meezly 80core chip in my watch, what a piece of s**t :P.
- trigger0219, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9they can't figure anything better out by then because of a few limiting factors ( i worked at intel so will not fully divuldge why, i'm not sure what i actually can, understand?)
1. factory limitations and upgrades take time and factory downtime costs extra money.
2. testing - whether you know it or not, intel does a lot of testing and holds this data.Each core requires tons of testing. this takes time and lots of money. The factory machines then need to be tuned and wafers are run through, tested, tweaked, run through... et cetera.
3. quantum computing, as you propose, is a long way off and wont be used in homes a long time after that. I don't see myself sovling NP problems at home applications often, and if i do, why not send that job over to a quantum computer via AJAX!
4. a 'new' idea takes time to test and build and effecently tune, if i new idea instead of cores were manifested your talking 5 years before it's entering testing.
trust me, intel knows what they are doing. - FlyingLlama, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"We'll be at 3 GHz within a year" --Steve Jobs.
- SweetMercury, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10And people will still ruin the potential performance by destroying their PC's with viruses, spyware, adware, P2P, porn...
Why does Intel even bother, really? - Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Ironically, it is expected that Windows XP.NET 2k10 SP1 will reserve 40 cores for various services and OS-related tasks.
- sigfpe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"We wouldn't have a need for the Folding@Home projects"
You seriously, seriously, seriously underestimate the difficulty of predicting protein folding! I bet you that with the millionfold increase in computing power that we'll probably see over the course of our lifetimes we'll (1) find that the protein folding problem is still a challenge and (2) we'll still be struggling to turn protein folding information into useful methods to make drugs or therapies. - LeDopore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@doodlebumm,
I think that they would maybe shoot for 100 cores, but expect a 20% failure rate. I wonder if they'll unlock every working core, or standardize a couple of configurations (i.e. "Celeron" might mean 60 cores work, "Core" might mean 80 cores work, etc.). - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9AMD are purportedly developing a 'reverse hyperthreading' technology, which would really allow them to shoot back past Intel. However, I can think of few tasks that need more than the processing power of a single core by themselves and cannot be run in multiple instances.
- doodlebumm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I figure they would really want true squares as the number of cores. 8x8=64, 9x9=81. But, 10x8 (or is it 20x4?) doesn't seem to make as much sense. I guess they can lay out the chip any way they want, though, huh?
- catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"to all the people remarking "Why would we want that?":
Don't forget the famous Bill Gates quote on memory, "640K ought to be enough for anybody.""
he never said that. - invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+664 core chip? or 64 core server? (16 quad core or 32 dual core)
- gigawatts, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ IanPhillips
That is true, but if you noticed, the DeLorean still needed gasoline to power its engine (and thus the entire reason for the 3rd movie), Mr Fusion was soley to power the time circuits (you know, the 1.21 Gigawatts)
So a Mr. Fusion would only be able to power electric vehicles, and well, obviously that change is not occuring as fast as some people would like it to in the world (so that, yes, even in 2015, there are still gas powered vehicles, and thus a need for gas stations) - Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4OTOH, 'one teraflops processor' sounds like you failed remedial English. Let it go. Nobody cares.
- OnlyShawn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5me, 10 years ago:
"why would i ever need more than a 400 mb hard drive??"
i'm sure we'll find something to do with that much processing power. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"its pretty dangerous to make promises like that"
No, actually, it's not. Which is why tech companies do it all the time. Is it likely you'll be wrong? Absolutely. Is anything bad going to happen when people realize you were wrong? Not really. - zboog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@IanPhillips:
Just because Doc had a Mr. Fusion didn't mean everyone else had it yet - maybe like every other invention of his in the series, it was a prototype. - digga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually, FLOP can mean FLoating point OPeration, but your point is well taken.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Read the article, they're general purpose floating-point cores. It's designed to reach 1 teraflop.
- Gir53457, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3With 80 cores I could solve world hunger, Calculate the formula of Life/Universe/Everything, And maybe, Just maybe, Play Oblivion at the highest settings.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No.
HyperThreading is what Intel decided to call "SuperThreading", industry lingo for a special case of Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT). Super-Threading means running the code from two thread on one processor, but instead of only using one pathway through the processor at a time (either using the Integer unit, the Float point unit, or the Vector unit), you could use all three at the same time. This is presented to the user as a second entire processor, but the fact is, it's only one. There is no direct "reverse" of the above concept. The processor never "pretends" to be two, it just accepts data from two threads at once, and executes what it can between them.
The concept of taking two processors and running one thread is a completely different concept. The only technology I know that's even capable of this is what Intel's called "Mitosis"; Core Multiplexing Technology, which uses something called Speculative Multithreading (basically, guessing which way a thread will take through its execution and keeping the data from the processor that's right).
The trick is, Speculative Multithreading and Simultaneous Multithreading can be used _at the same time_ to increase efficiency at the same time as you're losing efficiency to doing the same calculations twice on two different cores. - jhuebel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, the Intel Core Octacontagon(tm). Say that ten times fast.
- digga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Why not keep folding@home using all the cores? A couple of computers with 80 core CPUs = 160 cores. I think folding have more single-core machines than that already! ;)
- malkir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23D porn. It's the wave of the future!
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's amazing how many people don't read the article...
Important points:
"Intel's prototype uses 80 floating-point cores, each running at 3.16GHz" [Not 80 complete processor cores as in the traditional sense]
"In order to move data in between individual cores and into memory, the company plans to use an on-chip interconnect fabric and stacked SRAM (static RAM) chips attached directly to the bottom of the chip"
"Intel's work on silicon photonics, including its recent announcement of a silicon laser, could help contribute toward the core-to-core connection challenge" - Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@zep
arent we all - DerGeist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The article makes it seem like it has 80 floating-point cores, NOT 80 general purpose cores. You're right, 80 general-purpose cores (ie, 80 microprocessors) is a tad overkill with the state of technology today.
- Blitzenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they last another ten years. Outside of the DuoCore, they seem to have made a lot of serious mistakes. If they were on top of their game, AMD wouldn't be challenging them now.AMD just has to keep their game clean and wait for Intel to screw up again.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is