• 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.

Did Intel lie when they said 64 core CPUs by ?

tweakboy

tweakboy

Diamond Member
I clearly remember reading this article and it was intel plugging themselves, ,said 64 core by 2014 2015. This was said in like 2008.


They cant even make a solid Ivy 8 core soo I dont think even 32 core

The way its going now, by 2020 well have 16 core 32 threads,,,,,,,,

I love this CPU 6 core 12 threads,, WOW,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I would be set for life,, until the 12 core beast comes from the server line,, heheheh :thumbsup:
 
Not if Intel's MIC counts, supposedly 50+ cores on 22nm, and 64+ would not be a stretch on the next node. 😛

This reminds me of the "10 Ghz" prediction that we are supposed to be at by around now...turns out wrong as well.
 
Last edited:
dosnt intel have a 32 core chip floating around somewhere? also google Knights Corner as its supposed to use 50 sandy bridge cores on 22nm 🙂
 
tweakboy said:
I clearly remember reading this article and it was intel plugging themselves, ,said 64 core by 2014 2015. This was said in like 2008.
Click to expand...
Having that many cores is really hard to manage, resulting in low effective performance. Fortunately, Intel realized this in time and has taken another course. The Haswell CPU will have twice the throughput per core, thanks to the AVX2 instruction set extension which was derived from GPU technology.
 
VirtualLarry said:
They're not Sandy Bridge cores. They're souped-up Pentium cores.
Click to expand...

im talking about the 50 core chip.Here is a snip of the article I read


The first commercial product will include more than 50 cores and be called Knights Corner. An Intel spokesman would not say when that chip will be available. However, the chip will be part of the Sandy Bridge chip architecture, manufactured using the 22-nanometer process


and souped up pentiums are part of the sandy arch lol


full story

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...el_unveils_new_server_chip_with_32_cores.html


and a picture of a 50 core cpu that broke 1 tera flop

intel-knights-corner-reveal.jpg
 
Last edited:
No, they didn't lie, they already have these multi and many core chips developed in the labs.

They just try and milk and bilk the consumer market which is why you and I won't be able to purchase such chips until 2020 at the earliest.
 
grkM3 said:
im talking about the 50 core chip.Here is a snip of the article I read


The first commercial product will include more than 50 cores and be called Knights Corner. An Intel spokesman would not say when that chip will be available. However, the chip will be part of the Sandy Bridge chip architecture, manufactured using the 22-nanometer process


and souped up pentiums are part of the sandy arch lol


full story

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...el_unveils_new_server_chip_with_32_cores.html


and a picture of a 50 core cpu that broke 1 tera flop

intel-knights-corner-reveal.jpg
Click to expand...

this PC World "full story" looks incredibly wrong

AFAIK the uarchitecture of the cores for the 22nm MIC wasn't disclosed so far, Lnights Ferry was with 32 cores (Pentium derivative) on 45nm and the fisrt 22nm MIC should have 64 cores (with probably some disabled to increase yieds much like the Sony PS3 Cell chips) so it's well possible that the core were changed between the two designs (only 32 to 64 cores with 4x more density from 45nm to 22nm)
 
nenforcer said:
No, they didn't lie, they already have these multi and many core chips developed in the labs.

They just try and milk and bilk the consumer market which is why you and I won't be able to purchase such chips until 2020 at the earliest.
Click to expand...

If Intel could release a 64 core chip that they could manufacture and sell at their traditionally high margins, they would. It is impossible to fit 64 of core X into the same die space as 4 cores of core X, so if you want a 64 core chip in a reasonable die space you have to sacrifice single core performance. As it stands now most software if barely moving to be optimized for a few threads, and even greatly optimized software can't take advantage of 64 threads just because of the type of workload.

Right now, a 64 core chip would be a step back in performance for all but a few very well threaded workloads. It's not some anti-consumer conspiracy.
 
grkM3 said:
im talking about the 50 core chip.Here is a snip of the article I read


The first commercial product will include more than 50 cores and be called Knights Corner. An Intel spokesman would not say when that chip will be available. However, the chip will be part of the Sandy Bridge chip architecture, manufactured using the 22-nanometer process


and souped up pentiums are part of the sandy arch lol


full story

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...el_unveils_new_server_chip_with_32_cores.html


and a picture of a 50 core cpu that broke 1 tera FLOPS
*snip
Click to expand...
FTFY
FLOPS: Floating Point Operations Per Second
 
Last edited:
BenchPress said:
Having that many cores is really hard to manage, resulting in low effective performance. Fortunately, Intel realized this in time and has taken another course. The Haswell CPU will have twice the throughput per core, thanks to the AVX2 instruction set extension which was derived from GPU technology.
Click to expand...

It's not difficult to manage at all, it's just not worth the extra die space for the vast majority of applications at present. Once you make make your applications/OS/etc work well on 2 cores, you've done 99% of the work to get to N cores. The point of diminishing returns on core count varies wildly based on your applications - for most users, I think the inflection point for the Amdahl's law graph lays somewhere between 4-16 cores.

AVX2 is a way to provide some benefit to embarrassingly parallel programs without doubling the required die space. It will be quite some time before day-to-day programs are optimized for AVX2 (as is always the case with these things - MMX, SSE, etc), and not all programs will benefit.

From the way they've described Larabee/Knight's Corner in academic papers, each core was essentially going to be a Pentium Pro with an AVX unit on it. (Larabee was going to have a fixed-function texture unit - Knight's Corner does not.) This simple design let them get very many cores on a die for applications that benefit from that, but it was pretty slow (as you'd expect) running non-parallel applications.
 
Last edited:
VirtualLarry said:
They're not Sandy Bridge cores. They're souped-up Pentium cores.
Click to expand...

Pentium? Pentium was never actually a name for an architecture like Sandy Bridge, it was the marketing label. Pentium III was technically the P6 architecture; Pentium 4 was technically the Netburst architecture. The last architecture to be marketed mainly as Pentium was Netburst, and it was a dead end for Intel moving forward. Since the release of the Core architecture (marketed as Core 2 Duo/Quad), any processor named Pentium has been a watered down version of the current architecture (Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge).

I'm quite certain that Intel would never try using Netburst for a many-core processor. At the very least it's a descendant of the Core architecture, though it may not use the exact same architecture as any of Intel's desktop CPUs at all.
 
Last edited:
Red Hawk said:
Pentium? Pentium was never actually a name for an architecture like Sandy Bridge, it was the marketing label. Pentium III was technically the P6 architecture; Pentium 4 was technically the Netburst architecture. The last architecture to be marketed mainly as Pentium was Netburst, and it was a dead end for Intel moving forward. Since the release of the Core architecture (marketed as Core 2 Duo/Quad), any processor named Pentium has been a watered down version of the current architecture (Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge).

I'm quite certain that Intel would never try using Netburst for a many-core processor. At the very least it's a descendant of the Core architecture, though it may not use the exact same architecture as any of Intel's desktop CPUs at all.
Click to expand...

I think he meant that they were using P5 cores in the chip.
 
Red Hawk said:
Pentium? Pentium was never actually a name for an architecture like Sandy Bridge, it was the marketing label. Pentium III was technically the P6 architecture; Pentium 4 was technically the Netburst architecture. The last architecture to be marketed mainly as Pentium was Netburst, and it was a dead end for Intel moving forward. Since the release of the Core architecture (marketed as Core 2 Duo/Quad), any processor named Pentium has been a watered down version of the current architecture (Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge).

I'm quite certain that Intel would never try using Netburst for a many-core processor. At the very least it's a descendant of the Core architecture, though it may not use the exact same architecture as any of Intel's desktop CPUs at all.
Click to expand...

P6 started with the Pentium 2 and Pentium Pro line. I believe, and may be wrong, but the MIC, is using a modified P5 core.
 
nenforcer said:
No, they didn't lie, they already have these multi and many core chips developed in the labs.

They just try and milk and bilk the consumer market which is why you and I won't be able to purchase such chips until 2020 at the earliest.
Click to expand...

if they had a viable product they would.

They exist, but they are not actually superior to existing designs and as such are not on sale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top