• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

80-Core Microprocessor...HOLY CRAP!

Originally posted by: RichUK
They'll probably mount this on a 1066FSB too.
Click to expand...

LOL,
this artivcle was also on dailytech.it was 80 cores on 80 procs for 6400 cores.

but i bet not even all of them will catch a x6800 while dealgin with (unoptimised) x86 code.

besides i can imagine a name for something like that. its called space heater
 
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
Originally posted by: RichUK
They'll probably mount this on a 1066FSB too.
Click to expand...

LOL,
this artivcle was also on dailytech.it was 80 cores on 80 procs for 6400 cores.

but i bet not even all of them will catch a x6800 while dealgin with (unoptimised) x86 code.

besides i can imagine a name for something like that. its called space heater
Click to expand...

Wasn't that on a huge ass wafer?

 
Originally posted by: Kromis
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
Originally posted by: RichUK
They'll probably mount this on a 1066FSB too.
Click to expand...

LOL,
this artivcle was also on dailytech.it was 80 cores on 80 procs for 6400 cores.

but i bet not even all of them will catch a x6800 while dealgin with (unoptimised) x86 code.

besides i can imagine a name for something like that. its called space heater
Click to expand...

Wasn't that on a huge ass wafer?
Click to expand...

That "huge ass wafer" was holding multiple 80x80 chips. (Teraflop-on-a-chip) Each giant proc is a full 22mm x 13.7mm. So its still huge. But this isn't supposed to be a drop in for your 6600 😛 Additionally, each core is a stripped down FPU only chip. Which means that chip probably wont even compare to older P4s in general work. At the same time, the Cell has units to work on other things besides FPU, so it goes like this:

Current CPUs: Most general, most general performance. Limited Multithreaded capability

Cell: More specific, lower general performance with greater gains in its specific area. Greater Multithreaded capability.

Intel's Teraflop-on-a-chip: Most specific, lowest general performance with tremendous gains in FPU specific apps. Greatest Multithreaded capability.

 
I remember when Cell was introduced to the world with its "9 core" CPU. Many looked for intel's anwser to Cell. Here it is. Not only quad, but 80 cores in a single die.

A chip that has can do 1 TERA flops.

Simply amazing. (note that those cores are really simple compared to its counterparts)
 
Originally posted by: Beachboy
Let me be the first to say it...

Now that's a lot of glue! :laugh:
Click to expand...

:laugh:

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
AMD will NEVER catch up to this one! :shocked:
Click to expand...

the intel fanboy speaketh :roll: 😉 😛

Actually I'll bet that both intel and AMD will be neck to neck still. Just because intel got 80 cores doesn't mean AMD can't. 5 years is a long time in terms of technology.
 
Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
eh, we arent even ready for quad core
Click to expand...
Tell me about it. I upgraded to dual-core too soon. I should have waited another year, for all of the people who write code for a living to catch up.
 
Guys, while impressive, the 80 core device is a proof-of-concept. Those are in-order, fpu-only, fairly unsophisticated cores. This is because the purpose of the device is for research into inter-processor communication strategies for next-next-gen multicore chips. As far as general performance goes, it's about as impressive as 80 286s connected together.
 
So far I have seen 1 person in this thread capable of reading. This 80 core processor is NOT 80 full fledged cores. It is 80 of Intels "microcores", just look at the die size, its a few times larger, not 80 frikin times larger. And it won't be nearly 80 times as powerfull becasue each core is increadibly weak.
 
Intel is the one making it, so there is no relation to Torrenza since Intel already has access to its own FSB protocols. Torrenza and Intels rquivilent is so other compaines can use their same bus in order to put their chips in extra sockets.
 
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
I remember when Cell was introduced to the world with its "9 core" CPU. Many looked for intel's anwser to Cell. Here it is. Not only quad, but 80 cores in a single die.

A chip that has can do 1 TERA flops.

Simply amazing. (note that those cores are really simple compared to its counterparts)
Click to expand...

So you consider FPU vaporware that hasnt even been shown working in public an answer to a product that will power the first teraflop cluster in 2 years time? I'll leave it to you to figure out which is what. :disgust:

 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
So far I have seen 1 person in this thread capable of reading. This 80 core processor is NOT 80 full fledged cores. It is 80 of Intels "microcores", just look at the die size, its a few times larger, not 80 frikin times larger. And it won't be nearly 80 times as powerfull becasue each core is increadibly weak.
Click to expand...

I count 3 and most of the others weren't even discussing the complexity of the cores. So what's your point? It's still a cool proof of concept anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top