Register - Login
Views: 99859894
 Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users
Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies 		05-04-22 12:47:00 PM
Jul - Computers and Technology - 80 cores New poll - New thread - New reply
Next newer thread | Next older thread
Hiryuu

Level: 207


Posts: 6070/14435
EXP: 127636640
For next: 2147514

Since: 07-06-07


Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years
Posted on 01-08-09 04:55:05 PM (last edited by Fate Testarossa at 01-08-09 02:00 PM) Link | Quote
Good god, Intel...

It's been mentioned over the years...it just got brought up again by Dell thinking of possibly getting on the bandwagon for it fairly soon.

EDIT: (forgot this) Here's that statement...

For those of you who've been out of the loop (myself included) apparently Intel's been pledging this since 2006 to be done by 2011.

"So not only will it play Crysis on very high but it will also run at 10,000 FPS."

You know...with the more cores this thing is getting...think about the memory latency and having to keep up with managing all those cores at once. That's got to be a definite bottleneck...

____________________
CarCat

Level: 51


Posts: 442/572
EXP: 997131
For next: 16807

Since: 10-17-07

From: LA

Since last post: 13.0 years
Last activity: 11.9 years
Posted on 01-09-09 01:14:44 AM Link | Quote



See Also: "When is the speed of light not fast enough?"
----

Imagine the heat it must produce.

____________________

~CaR-CaT
Hiryuu

Level: 207


Posts: 6075/14435
EXP: 127636640
For next: 2147514

Since: 07-06-07


Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years
Posted on 01-09-09 01:21:48 AM Link | Quote
It apparently uses less wattage than current desktop models.

So apparently not that much if at all that much as what we're at now, probably.

____________________
CarCat

Level: 51


Posts: 444/572
EXP: 997131
For next: 16807

Since: 10-17-07

From: LA

Since last post: 13.0 years
Last activity: 11.9 years
Posted on 01-09-09 01:25:59 AM (last edited by CarCat at 01-08-09 10:26 PM) Link | Quote

Originally posted by Fate Testarossa
It apparently uses less wattage than current desktop models.

So apparently not that much if at all that much as what we're at now, probably.


Great, because if that is the case, maybe they'll work for no heat sink at all...

Ok, maybe not that far, but still.

____________________

~CaR-CaT
Hiryuu

Level: 207


Posts: 6076/14435
EXP: 127636640
For next: 2147514

Since: 07-06-07


Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years
Posted on 01-09-09 01:27:09 AM Link | Quote
We've needed heatsinks since...at least...the 486 days.

Keep dreaming.

____________________
CarCat

Level: 51


Posts: 445/572
EXP: 997131
For next: 16807

Since: 10-17-07

From: LA

Since last post: 13.0 years
Last activity: 11.9 years
Posted on 01-09-09 01:29:10 AM Link | Quote



Originally posted by Fate Testarossa
Keep dreaming.


Eh, what we didn't think was possible. :/

____________________

~CaR-CaT
Rachel Mae

Creature of Chaos
Level: 141


Posts: 1542/5929
EXP: 33607790
For next: 512224

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Foxglen

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 1 day
Posted on 01-09-09 03:23:58 AM Link | Quote
I'd much rather see companies increase the speed/computing power of individual cores, since there are still so many programs that can't fully take advantage of multiple cores. Or have they hit a wall and just can't make them any faster?

All this multi-core insanity as of late just seems like an expensive e-peener wagging contest...

____________________
Xkeeper

Level: 263


Posts: 8746/25353
EXP: 297174999
For next: 1785454

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
Posted on 01-09-09 03:25:21 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by BMF54123
I'd much rather see companies increase the speed/computing power of individual cores, since there are still so many programs that can't fully take advantage of multiple cores. Or have they hit a wall and just can't make them any faster?

All this multi-core insanity as of late just seems like an expensive e-peener wagging contest...

I recall reading that they've pretty much hit a wall.

Graphite was supposed to be faster, but they're working out ways of using it that don't cause it to melt.

Eh.

____________________
Hiryuu

Level: 207


Posts: 6080/14435
EXP: 127636640
For next: 2147514

Since: 07-06-07


Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years
Posted on 01-09-09 03:30:48 AM (last edited by Fate Testarossa at 01-09-09 12:31 AM) Link | Quote
Silicon has more that reached its limit last I checked. They were talking about the theoretical limit being reached right around the time the Pentium II came out...then the P3 hit a wall and then P4 burst forth for as long as it did.

But I really think that, this time, the best they can do now is push for what it's worth and go from there. RAM latencies from multi-core accesses aside, that's the best they can do until they get something stable.

Heck, why do you think they were pushing for GPU overtaking the CPU as of late?

____________________
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192


Posts: 1913/12211
EXP: 99332478
For next: 541093

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years
Posted on 01-09-09 04:05:37 AM Link | Quote

Time/Date

01-08-09 10:05:37pm

Posts

1913

Days Here

555

Level

62
Metal_Man88
Local Moderator
They should remove all the bottlenecks now. Now if all the components in a computer ran at 3 GHz solid, I'd spit out my drink at the breathtakingly insane speed.

____________________
Original Layout © Tobias Kelmandia
Deleted User
Collection of nobodies
Posted on 01-09-09 11:05:06 AM (last edited by Microworm at 01-09-09 08:05 AM) Link | Quote
sure.

i think having a 80-core processor isn't very useful yet. most programs can use only 1 core, sometimes 2.

Originally posted by Fate Testarossa
You know...with the more cores this thing is getting...think about the memory latency and having to keep up with managing all those cores at once. That's got to be a definite bottleneck...


yeah. you're right. there's the problem of memory latency, but also managing memory accesses from several cores at the same time, keeping the cores sync together, ...


____________________


===================
[Posted by Microworm]
Sine
2310
Level: 94


Posts: 1157/2316
EXP: 8201555
For next: 155102

Since: 07-07-07


Since last post: 3.7 years
Last activity: 290 days
Posted on 01-11-09 05:10:10 PM Link | Quote

Shiny new layout!
----------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Gig
Graphite was supposed to be faster, but they're working out ways of using it that don't cause it to melt.
I vaguely remember hearing something about carbon nanotubes or something along that line.

Course I dont think it's fully been tested yet so, yeah, that wall still exists =/

Originally posted by Microworm
i think having a 80-core processor isn't very useful yet. most programs can use only 1 core, sometimes 2.
Yeah, but if you want to run 40 programs all at once you can do it. Multiple cores are good for multitasking.

My brother told me of his adventures at the 2007 Game Dev. Conference where they demoed an 8 core processor, had WoW, Halo, Photoshop, and a few other programs running all at once.

____________________
The question is what is the question
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192


Posts: 1931/12211
EXP: 99332478
For next: 541093

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years
Posted on 01-19-09 06:28:59 AM Link | Quote

Time/Date

01-19-09 12:28:59am

Posts

1931

Days Here

565

Level

63
Metal_Man88
Local Moderator
Now if only we had 16 hands, 16 eyes, 16 ears...

...We don't?

Darn. What a waste.

____________________
Original Layout © Tobias Kelmandia
Next newer thread | Next older thread
Jul - Computers and Technology - 80 cores New poll - New thread - New reply


Rusted Logic

Acmlmboard - commit 47be4dc [2021-08-23]
©2000-2022 Acmlm, Xkeeper, Kaito Sinclaire, et al.

28 database queries, 2 query cache hits.
Query execution time: 0.085896 seconds
Script execution time: 0.042290 seconds
Total render time: 0.128187 seconds