Intel - 32 Core CPU's By End Of Decade

[jlbenedict]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/gizmodo/2006071...0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/10/intel_32_core_processor/

"It might be time to change our way of thinking about processor speed. Now Intel is hinting at processors with 32 cores available by the end of this decade. Sure, the company predicted 20GHz chips by 2010 a few years ago, but now instead of higher gigahertz numbers, they're talking multiple cores that will result in a processor that will be 15 times faster than today's quickest chips.

Intel has assigned the pet name "Keifer" to the many-core processor project in general and "Gulftown" specifically to its 32-core processor that will be manufactured using a 32nm process, and it will include eight processing nodes, each with four cores. The jaw-dropper is that each one of these cores will be running at a paltry 2GHz, but since there are 32 of them, they'll leave today's processors in the dust. That is, unless Intel thinks of something else between now and then, which wouldn't be all that unusual."

 

[Lord Banshee]

I don't believe intel will hit that unless they plan to reduce size of their cores, ie less cache and many other things... But thats what i think.

We'll see Quad Cores with 65nm, most likely not see octal Cores until 45nm which would be in what 2008-2009. So maybe 16 cores with 32nm if they keep the same size they are using now. Not seeing this happen unless intel plans to make a core like the Cell, or less cache.. a lot less cache. Remember it will not happen if it isn't profitable.

If it does happen i hope MS and many other Compilers get smarter... A LOT smarter to automatically scale to a defined set of CPUs. As for what i understand not all code can be mutithreaded and has to go though a linear process, so i am not sure what to make of 32-cores....

 

[RadiclDreamer]

In other news, we'll have flying cars by the year 2000....oh wait

 

[jlbenedict]

Seems pretty much exagerated, I believe as well..

even if they continue with the minor decreases in core size, we'll have CPU's back up to the same size as the old Pentium Pro

 

[Lord Banshee]

lol i remember thinking that back in the day, lol

Where is my flying car lol

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In other news, we'll have flying cars by the year 2000....oh wait

what was that cartoon; The Jetsons.. or some $hit like that..

and here we are almost 2007 and I'm still driving on 4 wheels and using the same gasoline

 

[bignateyk]

lol. wtf is the point of 32 core processors for the average consumer, unless they figure out a way to have all 32 execute the same thread in conjunction.

 

[Markbnj]

If it does happen i hope MS and many other Compilers get smarter... A LOT smarter to automatically scale to a defined set of CPUs. As for what i understand not all code can be mutithreaded and has to go though a linear process, so i am not sure what to make of 32-cores....

Most apps are multithreaded, but it doesn't really matter. Even if every process is single-threaded you still have 30-50 processes running on the average XP box. No question in my mind that large numbers of cores are the distant future of CPUs.

 

[aka1nas]

If they did get a 32-core chip out by 2010 they would be relatively simple cores rather than simply a bunch of modern cpu cores stuck together. Not that this is a bad thing as the current method is probably relatively inefficient.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
lol. wtf is the point of 32 core processors for the average consumer, unless they figure out a way to have all 32 execute the same thread in conjunction.

Exactly. If we can't have something like Reverse HT - wtf is the point?

 

[Bobthelost]

Bah, you lot all laughed when they said we'd all have 6Ghz+ Netburst chips, but who's laughing now eh?

 

[coldpower27]

I seriously doubt we will get to 32 Cores by 2010.

For desktops at least by 2010, I would be hoping we would be on the 32nm process with maybe 8 Cores, though 16 Cores would be doable on this process, 32 Cores would place the die size at around the 400mm2 range, not entirely impossible come to think of it. It would just be a server MP product if Intel were to make it.

 

[Unkno]

32cores=my new heater for the house

 

[dmens]

god, what crappy coverage, just like IBM's "500ghz transistor". this thing isn't even for general computing.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Bah, you lot all laughed when they said we'd all have 6Ghz+ Netburst chips, but who's laughing now eh?

Where are they? AFAIK stock p4 never got past 3.73

 

[broly8877]

3.8

 

[swtethan]

I would say that this is very possible looking at how technology progresses.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: Bobthelost
Bah, you lot all laughed when they said we'd all have 6Ghz+ Netburst chips, but who's laughing now eh?

Where are they? AFAIK stock p4 never got past 3.73

Sarcasm meter go boom

I hope they have 32 cores for my notebook computer as well (along with 16 way SLI/Crossfire so I can watch my battery drain before the initial boot finishes in four seconds on MS Vista Ultiame leeT 64bit primal factor X edition. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Baby! (Disclaimer: I am being stupid yippee)

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
In other news, we'll have flying cars by the year 2000....oh wait

what was that cartoon; The Jetsons.. or some $hit like that..

and here we are almost 2007 and I'm still driving on 4 wheels and using the same gasoline

Fellow Kevin Smith fan I see

 

[cheesehead]

32 cores is rather silly.
I say that we should have two to four "major" cores, and four to eight "minor" cores, like IBM's Cell processor. The "minor" cores could handle hard drive access and the operating system, while the major cores could run major threads. (For example, the small cores will independently run windows, deal with your hard drive, and play your Mp3's. The large ones will work on Photoshop or video editing.

 

[Pugnate]

That's not too hard to fathom. 4 core from AMD at the start on next year and 8 core at the end of it.

That leaves 26 cores in three years. Ok so maybe it is a bit optimistic.

 

[CelSnip]

Originally posted by: Pugnate
That's not too hard to fathom. 4 core from AMD at the start on next year and 8 core at the end of it.

That leaves 26 cores in three years. Ok so maybe it is a bit optimistic.

Kentsfield is being released early in 07 and AMD's quad core processor will probably not arrive until much later that year.