32- Core Processors from Intel by 2010?

zippyjuan · 07-10-2006, 05:40 PM

And look at the fab size 32 nanometers. How much smaller can they go?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...710072810.html

Quote:

Intel Targets 32-Core Processors in 2010.
Intel Develops Processors with 32 Cores

Category: CPU

by Anton Shilov

[ 07/10/2006 | 07:30 AM ]

The world’s main supplier of microprocessors, Intel Corp., plans to offer a central processing unit for servers, which will be 15 times faster compared to today’s chips and which will contain up to 32 processing engines, according to a media report.

The processor code-named Gulftown will have “eight processing nodes” with four cores on each one, according to TG Daily web-site, which may mean that the chip will consist of several physical dice. Every die will sport four processing engines, 3MB unified level-three cache, while every core will have 512KB L2 cache. The dice will be connected to each other using “a ring architecture” interconnect technology.

Intel already reportedly has project named Keifer, which is focused around many-core processors. Keifer is generally aimed at server market and will primarily compete against Sun’s Niagara processors, which micro-architecture is used in the company’s UltraSparc T1 chips. So far Intel competed against ultra high-end server processors from Sun and IBM using its Itanium lineup of microprocessors. Currently it is unclear whether the Gulftown is based on the IA64 architecture, or still is an x86 microprocessor, however, on the slide published by TG Daily Intel’s Xeon 5100 (Woodcrest) chips are compared with the Gulftown.

Intel expects Keifer to result in a 15x performance jump over today's Xeon 5100 processors at just 2GHz clock speed, it is reported.

In 2010 Intel will use 32nm process technology to produce its processors, which will allow to make the Gulftown processor more or less cost efficient. Even though, there are no exact details concerning the matter and it is uncertain, whether such chips will cost Intel’s customers up to $3372 per unit, like today’s high-end Xeon MP or Itanium 2, or more.

Intel did not comment on the news-story.

gear02 · 07-10-2006, 05:59 PM

Future motto: Intel. Can flash fry a cow in 15 seconds.

johnnymk · 07-10-2006, 10:08 PM

There would be no benefit to a home user unless he/she would want to perform 32 tasks at once..Right?

Cubsfan · 07-10-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnymk

There would be no benefit to a home user unless he/she would want to perform 32 tasks at once..Right?

Assuming that multi-core processors get more popular, I'm guessing that many programs will start appearing which take advantage of them.

Chgoman · 07-11-2006, 08:44 AM

You have to wonder where the line is between squeezing every drop of energy off the current architecture vs. using new technology to develop a new architecture.

As some point a new design has to work more effeciently than say 'by july 2050 we will introduce the new 642 core design with DDR845 and ABC XYZ LMNOP technology along with our new thermonuclear powered fan cooling technology which is needed to cool 642 cores woking in a 2 square inch chip.'

johnnymk · 07-11-2006, 09:25 AM

Is there any reason that CPUs have to be as compact as they are
? Couldn't Intel and AMD just develop much larger ones which would possibly cure the heating problem? Of course, it may require a slightly larger motherboard, but who cares?

zippyjuan · 07-11-2006, 09:53 AM

I believe that is related to cost. The smaller they can make them, the fewer inputs they need per chip and they can get more from one single silicon wafer. It also speeds up the processor a bit since the electrons have shorter distances to travel (but really, they are not going THAT far at the speed of light!) and I think electrical leakage is less of a problem.

Airencracken · 07-11-2006, 09:59 AM

Electricity does not move at the speed of light.

Paymaster · 07-11-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gear02

Future motto: Intel. Can flash fry a cow in 15 seconds.

15 seconds?!?! Awww.... I want it now!!

07-11-2006, 09:59 AM	#8
Airencracken Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: California Posts: 6,681	Electricity does not move at the speed of light. __________________ "I remember my first orgasm, I just wish someone was there to share it with me..."11-05-2003 05:33 AM - Topane They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opiate of the masses. - Karl Marx Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-10-2006, 05:59 PM	#2
gear02 Admiral Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 7,223	Future motto: Intel. Can flash fry a cow in 15 seconds.

07-10-2006, 10:08 PM	#3
johnnymk Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: May 2000 Location: LEVITTOWN< PA> USA Posts: 13,621	There would be no benefit to a home user unless he/she would want to perform 32 tasks at once..Right?

07-11-2006, 08:44 AM	#5
Chgoman Lieutenant Commander Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 696	You have to wonder where the line is between squeezing every drop of energy off the current architecture vs. using new technology to develop a new architecture. As some point a new design has to work more effeciently than say 'by july 2050 we will introduce the new 642 core design with DDR845 and ABC XYZ LMNOP technology along with our new thermonuclear powered fan cooling technology which is needed to cool 642 cores woking in a 2 square inch chip.'

07-11-2006, 09:25 AM	#6
johnnymk Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: May 2000 Location: LEVITTOWN< PA> USA Posts: 13,621	Is there any reason that CPUs have to be as compact as they are ? Couldn't Intel and AMD just develop much larger ones which would possibly cure the heating problem? Of course, it may require a slightly larger motherboard, but who cares?

07-11-2006, 09:53 AM	#7
zippyjuan Picture of the Day Guru Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 8,756	I believe that is related to cost. The smaller they can make them, the fewer inputs they need per chip and they can get more from one single silicon wafer. It also speeds up the processor a bit since the electrons have shorter distances to travel (but really, they are not going THAT far at the speed of light!) and I think electrical leakage is less of a problem.

User Name
Password
Remember Me?