80 core CPU from Intel?

[KieranMurphy]

Intel have developed a prototype of an EIGHTY core CPU which they claim will be commercially available in 5 years.

http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?part=rss&tag=6119618&subj=news


KM.

 

[Flerbizky]

Intel have developed a prototype of an EIGHTY core CPU which they claim will be commercially available in 5 years.

http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html?part=rss&tag=6119618&subj=news


KM.

BS..sorry...

Won't be needed by anyone - EVER...

 

[JNasty4G63]

BS..sorry...

Won't be needed by anyone - EVER...

Not true. Sure, for a general desktop user, no, it would be complete overkill. Hell, in 4-5 years, the normal desktop world might still not be really needing 4-8 core chips, let alone 80 cores. But, thats why these chips are not being developed for them. These are chips that are intended to be used for research, simulation, data centers and other very high calculation intensive fields. In those other fields, like biology, meteorolgy, molecular engineering and such, the more cores, bandwidth and throughput you can give them, the better.

Hilg

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060926corp_b.htm

 

[magburner]

Hell, in 4-5 years, the normal desktop world might still not be really needing 4-8 core chips, let alone 80 cores. Intel CEO announces Core 2 Quad

Try 8 cores is less than 3 years!

 

[KieranMurphy]

BS..sorry...

Won't be needed by anyone - EVER...

Well, I don't think that desktop PCs will be using 80-core CPUs in a few years, but I can easily imagine servers in render farms or similarly CPU-intensive applications.

And I wouldn't be so sure about saying that it won't be need by "anyone - EVER...." When I had an Amiga with a 14Mhz Motorola 68020 and 2Mb RAM, I couldn't imagine a desktop PC having a CPU running at a couple of hundred times that clockspeed and that's at least dozens of times more complex and with a couple hundred times as much memory. But that's an average desktop PC these days.


KM.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Try 8 cores is less than 3 years!

Note that I said we won't be "NEEDING" 4-8 core CPUs in the next 4-5 years. Not that there wouldn't be some out there. Hell, my Mac Pro uses 2 of Intel's "Woodcrest" Xeon dual-core processors, so thats 4-core. But, soon Intel will be releasing the "Clovertown" Xeon chips that are quad-core on a single CPU die. Thus, in server and workstation systems, where 2-4 chips are not uncommon, you will be seeing 8-16 core systems. And since Clovertown chips are drop-in replaceable with Woodcrest, I could theoretically have an 8-core system myself later this year.

But, as I was saying, in the normal desktop users world, the need for dual-core is barely needed now. It helps, no doubt. But, when comparing an AMD Athlon 64 system to one using the A64 X2 chips, we're talking about a fast computer compared to a VERY fast computer. There just isn't THAT much software out there yet that takes advantage of having multiple cores. Down the road, there sure will be. And then, having 2, 4, 8 or more cores will be a big plus. But, we're a ways off from that in the normal desktop world.

Hilg