AOA Forums

AOA Forums (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/)
-   Intel Motherboards & CPUs (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/5-intel-motherboards-and-cpus/)
-   -   Intel to show off 80 core processor today (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/intel-motherboards-and-cpus/40266-intel-show-off-80-core-processor.html)

danrok 12th February, 2007 10:22 AM

Intel to show off 80 core processor today
 
Read it on the front page:
http://www.aoaforums.com/frontpage/content/view/1955/1/

Comments?

Daniel ~ 12th February, 2007 04:02 PM

But will it be able to run vista or will I need an upgrade? ":O}

Somewhere around this point someone ought to ask, and I'm not saying 200 CPU's wouldn't be fun, do we need this?

What might we use this kind of processing power for?

Hey! I'm asking! ":O}

danrok 12th February, 2007 04:23 PM

I guess to make a single-core run faster and faster, is more of a challenge than simply having more cores for more processing power.

80 cores seems over the top, but I would guess it is a far better soloution than the current supercomputers with 100s of seperate processors. Must surely save on power, space and other resources?

Daniel ~ 12th February, 2007 04:28 PM

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant what would we desk top users use them for? What perceived need would they meet?

skool h8r 12th February, 2007 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel ~
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant what would we desk top users use them for? What perceived need would they meet?


For Folding of course!

And of course power consumtion is gonna be lower, just look at the difference between a single core athlon, and an X2. It's quite efficient to say it's "double the power".

danrok 12th February, 2007 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel ~
Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant what would we desk top users use them for? What perceived need would they meet?

I think it will be some years before we see 80-core desktop processors, so who knows?

Daniel ~ 12th February, 2007 05:09 PM

Sorry Patti didn't buy that one Dan. Anyone got something better I can tell her? ":O}

Gizmo 12th February, 2007 05:33 PM

The 80-core processor that they are showing is just a proof-of-concept kind of thing. The actual cores are pretty primitive.

However, Danrok has the basic idea right. It's far easier at this stage to build 100 or 1,000 cores all running at 1 GHz than it is to build 1 core running at 100 GHz.

The biggest problem is that the sofware industry isn't ready for this. Multi-threaded programming is, for many, a black art, and the software development tools available today don't make it any easier. The dual and quad-core cpus that we have today are helping to kick-start this development cycle, but I think Intel are being optimistic if they believe that 5 years from now the industry will be ready for massively parallel CPUs.

Daniel ~ 12th February, 2007 05:35 PM

But Vista only took five year...nevermind...":O}

GrahamGarside 12th February, 2007 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel ~
But will it be able to run vista or will I need an upgrade? ":O}

Somewhere around this point someone ought to ask, and I'm not saying 200 CPU's wouldn't be fun, do we need this?

What might we use this kind of processing power for?

Hey! I'm asking! ":O}

Absolutely sod all unless you count racking up big power bills :)

fearless joe 12th February, 2007 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

What might we use this kind of processing power for?

for the same thing as we 'need' all the power we have now, if youd had told me less then 10 years ago that i would need anything more then the 500meg hard drive i had i would have though you were nuts

they'll come up with things we 'need' that require more power.

like operating systems that use more then they need to lol

win 2k pro forever :)

Daniel ~ 12th February, 2007 09:03 PM

Yeah, but other than games, that are designed to need hardware....I really haven't used the power I have in years... and remember, we are not talking about X10 the power we have now, but more on the order or X100, X1000, X10,000 the power we have now.

I mean that's more processors than I had MHz when I started! ":O}

Most of the Mhz up till now were needed for entertainment, I guess we will still want to be entertained and/or to entertain...

GrahamGarside 12th February, 2007 10:02 PM

Almost all of the pc power we've had thrust into the home market over the last 15 years has eben entertainment driven.

The things that may actually benefit us are still beyond current power levels, like speech recognition (yes I know we have it but I mean on a level thats as natural as speaking to a person)

Gizmo 12th February, 2007 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrahamGarside
Almost all of the pc power we've had thrust into the home market over the last 15 years has eben entertainment driven.

The things that may actually benefit us are still beyond current power levels, like speech recognition (yes I know we have it but I mean on a level thats as natural as speaking to a person)

Good Speech Recognition is going to require more than just increased CPU horsepower. According to Dr. Mark Clements at Georgia Tech, it is going to require us to make some changes in the fundamental way we go about speech recognition.

danrok 12th February, 2007 11:30 PM

Most of us put even the fastest processors to hard work everyday. At least, collectively we do.

We all use Google's processors or AOA's server's processors, etc.

But, I don't think we're as short of processing power as we are short of bandwidth on the net's backbones. That's where we really need to see some advances, before things start to get real slow.

captinhector 12th February, 2007 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrok
Most of us put even the fastest processors to hard work everyday. At least, collectively we do.

We all use Google's processors or AOA's server's processors, etc.

But, I don't think we're as short of processing power as we are short of bandwidth on the net's backbones. That's where we really need to see some advances, before things start to get real slow.

^^^ what he said^^^

BUT, about 200,000 home pc's running one of thoes, and 80 copies of F@H, and you got some serious points......

Gizmo 13th February, 2007 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danrok
Most of us put even the fastest processors to hard work everyday. At least, collectively we do.

We all use Google's processors or AOA's server's processors, etc.

But, I don't think we're as short of processing power as we are short of bandwidth on the net's backbones. That's where we really need to see some advances, before things start to get real slow.

Today's compression algorithms are dominated by the need to be able to decompress with very little processing power. In general, the idea is that we will sacrifice processing on the front end for compression as long as it is easy to extract. With more processing horsepower available at the client, we can use compression algorithms that are more efficient than those available today, but which also require more processing power to decompress in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, more powerful cpus could actually help us make better use of the available bandwidth.

fearless joe 14th February, 2007 12:34 AM

id like to think that if you can suddanly (bit unlikly this) buy a computer 100 times more powerfull then now then the pcs of today, which are good enough for 90% of people, should cost around £20 each lol, yet somhow, i dout it

Favu 14th February, 2007 12:52 AM

Meh, the PCs of yesterday are good enough for 90% of people, but they don't get made anymore.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0