8,000 core chip?

[WhiteEagle]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that was way-off myself. 80 cores is much more reasonable.

[fps justin]

80 cores is still ALOT of cores.

[Gig-O-Ram]

Originally Posted by Quakindude

The large majority of software is just now becoming multi-threaded from when the Pentium's first came out with Hyper-Threading. Now that we have two physical cores, and even 4, you can figure on another couple of years before the software catches up. Not only that, but Quad core rigs would really benefit from reverse Hyper-threading, which is something AMD and Intel seem to be working on from rumors.

Reverse Hyper-Threading will make four cores look like one to single threaded programs. Or four cores look like two to a program optimized for dual core.

Interesting times are on the horizon, that's for sure.

The reversed Hyper Threading sounds like it could be a good thing if they could make it work, given that the newer CPUs are leaping ahead with the number of cores, but there are still going to be a lot of programs that aren't set up to run on them so well, so if the CPU itself can give the program a break, it will be a boon for folks with older software.

80 cores? What was I saying about tech stuff moving so fast?? What did I say?! Jesus...let folks get right with dual and quad cores first...

Let's see...if a good quad core costs a grand, then an 8K Core CPU would cost...if things are kept proportionate...about $2,000,000! Let's see Newegg offer a deal on that one!

[Lead Head]

Originally Posted by Gig-O-Ram

The reversed Hyper Threading sounds like it could be a good thing if they could make it work, given that the newer CPUs are leaping ahead with the number of cores, but there are still going to be a lot of programs that aren't set up to run on them so well, so if the CPU itself can give the program a break, it will be a boon for folks with older software.

80 cores? What was I saying about tech stuff moving so fast?? What did I say?! Jesus...let folks get right with dual and quad cores first...

Let's see...if a good quad core costs a grand, then an 8K Core CPU would cost...if things are kept proportionate...about $2,000,000! Let's see Newegg offer a deal on that one!

Its 80 very simple cores, massive parallelism. The die it self is around the same size as a QC CPU die.

[Gig-O-Ram]

Originally Posted by Lead Head

Its 80 very simple cores, massive parallelism. The die it self is around the same size as a QC CPU die.

I figured that it wouldn't necessarily be huge - 80 cores or 8000 cores - since that CELL processor has 8 cores and is about the size of a penny. The cores on the CELL are pretty tightly packed, so 80 cores would be really tight.

[WhiteEagle]

Nanotech man, nanotech shrinks everything...

[XoRn]

Isn't the idea to have several cores at very low clock speeds, like 200mhzs?

[Lead Head]

Originally Posted by XoRn

Isn't the idea to have several cores at very low clock speeds, like 200mhzs?

The Intel 80 core CPU, has 80 VERY VERY simple RISC cores, each running at 3.2GHz

[Gig-O-Ram]

Originally Posted by Lead Head

The Intel 80 core CPU, has 80 VERY VERY simple RISC cores, each running at 3.2GHz

Day-am!! Are you sure about that? Simple cores or not, would not 80 cores working at 3.2ghz each generate A LOT of heat? What kind of freaking heatsink will that one need on it? Not to mention what kind of PSU will it need, and how much juice will it want?

Let's see...let me try the math on that...

80 cores times 3.2ghz each...carry the 1...I get 2.56 x10 [11]...25600000000000hz...25,600ghz, or 25.6Thz...That couldn't be right...a 25.6Thz CPU? That would be quite a leap though, wouldn't it? I guess my poor Big Typhoon would be out of business, LOL!

By the way, what does RISC mean?

[Lead Head]

Originally Posted by Gig-O-Ram

Day-am!! Are you sure about that? Simple cores or not, would not 80 cores working at 3.2ghz each generate A LOT of heat? What kind of freaking heatsink will that one need on it? Not to mention what kind of PSU will it need, and how much juice will it want?

Let's see...let me try the math on that...

80 cores times 3.2ghz each...carry the 1...I get 2.56 x10 [11]...25600000000000hz...25,600ghz, or 25.6Thz...That couldn't be right...a 25.6Thz CPU? That would be quite a leap though, wouldn't it? I guess my poor Big Typhoon would be out of business, LOL!

By the way, what does RISC mean?

It doesn't work that. You can't add clocks together like that. These CPUs are meant for extreme parallelism, processing very threaded applications. The individual cores are VERY SMALL and simple. Much much smaller then a normal CPU. The die is the size of a normal dual core, or maybe quad core chip, still on 65nm technology. The TDP of the chip is around 80 watts or so, smaller then Intel's current quad cores. The reason why we couldn't use these CPUs is because they are RISC, or Reduced Instruction Set, they usually can be very simple, and high performance per core. The Mac PowerPC line of computers were RISC. x86 is CISC, which is not compatible with RISC.