Intel plans for 10-core chips around the bend?

[Techhie]

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/2166/screenshot20100329at100.png

Could be complete nonsense coming out of /b/ (most likely the case), though I found this interesting.

If this guy sheds any light onto Intel's short-term roadmap, it looks like these could be the beginning of the shift away from enthusiast parts to chips designed for high-core cloud computing.

Thoughts?

[J the Ninja]

Seriously, we are treating posts on 4chan as credible now? And I thought it was bad when we freaked over something the Inquirer posted. There is absolutely no evidence this guy is not making all of this up as he goes. If he actually knew something, why post it on /b/ of all places? Plenty of sites, including this MR, have anonymous tip-submission systems in place. He could have easily sent this somewhere more reputable. Not to mention, despite being Anonymous, saying what chip he is working on and what he does with it may be enough to figure out who he is.

Lastly, would they even know the final clocks and TDP that early in the development stage?

[Shademaster]

Seriously, we are treating posts on 4chan as credible now? And I thought it was bad when we freaked over something the Inquirer posted. There is absolutely no evidence this guy is not making all of this up as he goes. If he actually knew something, why post it on /b/ of all places? Plenty of sites, including this MR, have anonymous tip-submission systems in place. He could have easily sent this somewhere more reputable. Not to mention, despite being Anonymous, saying what chip he is working on and what he does with it may be enough to figure out who he is.

Lastly, would they even know the final clocks and TDP that early in the development stage?

I know I know, taking 4Chan serious is some serious business, but what if he is right...

[peskaa]

Ridiculous. I could post something like that, and I'd get credence?

[Umbongo]

Fake.

[300D]

First, even if the post were real, a 10 core CPU won't be public for a year minimum. That means countless revisions will be made in that time.

Second, who would be stupid enough to risk a cushy R&D job at Intel just to bitch about the power draw of a processor that is probably still in the alpha design phase?

Third, its a desktop cpu, just feed the damn thing more power.

[Hellhammer]

FAKE!

Intel can make 6-core @2.93GHz which has TDP of 95W so why a 10-core running @2.6GHz max would have TDP of 165W? 10-core CPU will likely be either Sandy Bridge or Haswell and 22nm process so it would top out at 135W. AMD's Magny-Cours are twelve-core and they top out at 137W 2.3GHz and they are made using 45nm process.

[alent1234]

more cores is the new GHz race. a year or two ago Intel showed an 80 core CPU as a demo. i don't remember the latest roadmaps that go out a few years, but 10 core CPU's next year or in 2-3 years sounds credible. probably in 2 years when Intel starts transitioning to the 25nm production process and larger wafers. now they are on 32nm with 45nm CPU's still being produced

[bearcatrp]

Until the software catches up to utilize multiple cores, much less 10, its not worth the money to get. Plus, with GPU starting to be utilized for processing, its becoming a joke. First it was the Ghz race, now its the core race. What's next, putting these things in your head! :eek:

[alent1234]

a lot of software already benefits. we're ordering a few servers with the new 5600 Xeons to run SQL Server. on some workloads where you have multiple apps connecting to a database server running short queries more cores means more threads can run at once and it will run faster.

[nanofrog]

If this guy sheds any light onto Intel's short-term roadmap, it looks like these could be the beginning of the shift away from enthusiast parts to chips designed for high-core cloud computing.
First, the article doesn't seem credible, and I agree with 300D's mention of job risk (but the person claims to be 24, so that might have something to do with it... :eek: :p).

But the publicly available information Intel's published clearly supports the effort for higher cores in the enterprise market (Terascale R&D project ring a bell?). They want such parts as it's cheaper in the end (fewer systems to handle the load, as well as lower operations costs). Think clusters for example. ;)

The enthusiast parts won't disappear though. They're going to be the workstation parts as well, and are going to be SP (as the next Tock cycle will introduce an 8 core SP chip line). For instances where more performance is needed, there's supposed to be two choices. One is using GPGPU processing (once the software is able to take advantage of it), the second would be using a cluster in conjunction with the workstation (i.e. render farm attached to a graphics workstation).

It also happens to play into the desire for software developers to use clusters to serve their software to clients (i.e. consumer systems used as terminals via ISP service, and go to a pay-as-you-go fee schedule). The idea is a cross between further tightening of IP control and increased profits. The kink per se, is that the ISP bandwidth isn't adequate as it currently exists, but it's being persued anyway (on the presumption that the ISP providers will upgrade their networks, despite evidence otherwise - they're waiting for Federal projects to pay for the upgrades, such as highway expansion/improvements = service cables and equipment are upgraded when relocated).

a lot of software already benefits. we're ordering a few servers with the new 5600 Xeons to run SQL Server. on some workloads where you have multiple apps connecting to a database server running short queries more cores means more threads can run at once and it will run faster.
You're in an area that the software can take advantage of such systems though. Not much else outside of the server market has yet, and some can't be (i.e. word processing or other applications that depend on user based data entry = "idiot on the other end of the keyboard" :p).

[300D]

Until the software catches up to utilize multiple cores

Which happened around 2000 with the introduction of OSX.

[macuser154]

Which happened around 2000 with the introduction of OSX.

OS X SUPPORTS multiple processors, but the software isn't out there to UTILISE them effeciently.

[Techhie]

Seriously, we are treating posts on 4chan as credible now?

At which point did I suggest it was credible? I posted it merely for scrutiny and speculation, not to listen to people calling me out for posting "unreliable sources."

Any man with half a brain could tell you not to trust anything posted on 4chan, much less /b/.

[Techhie]

Which happened around 2000 with the introduction of OSX.

Yes, but we are a longshot from being able to use even the 8 cores of the 2008 Mac Pro in all but a few apps, much less the 12 in the 2010 model. More cores are meaningless if programs are only single threaded, and rely more on clock speed than anything else.

[RubbishBBspeed]

I'm going with fake.

Car manufactures are noted for nondisclosure agreements, aerospace companies notorious for confidentiality contracts. Computer chip manufactures..... well one can only imagine how tight they are about protecting products..... Film studios are known for pushing false plot lines out to staff to see who blabs and therefore can't be trusted. This lad may have worked for intel but by those details he'll have been found by now and booted out long ago.

[Salavat23]

Intel would never release consumer 165 watt parts. This isn't 2004.

[300D]

but the software isn't out there to UTILISE them effeciently.
Actually, every piece of software supports it under OSX. You'll have to look hard just to find something that can only use one CPU.
Yes, but we are a longshot from being able to use even the 8 cores of the 2008 Mac Pro in all but a few apps, much less the 12 in the 2010 model. More cores are meaningless if programs are only single threaded
Open activity monitor and see how many active threads are running and you'll understand why more processors is better.

[Hellhammer]

Actually, every piece of software supports it under OSX. You'll have to look hard just to find something that can only use one CPU.

Open activity monitor and see how many active threads are running and you'll understand why more processors is better.

Ummhh.. I remember you showing a pic that MSN for Mac supported +50 threads but why on earth do apps like FCP only support single core (only compressor app is multi core)? Does the amount of threads/utilizing actually mean that the app can take advantage of all those threads/cores or can it just recognize them but can't actually put any workload on them?

I think the amount of threads doesn't mean that the app can actually take advantage of all those threads/cores.

[nanofrog]

Actually, every piece of software supports it under OSX. You'll have to look hard just to find something that can only use one CPU.
For the software to be able to use more than a single thread, it has to be written to do so. All Apple did, was create a framework that's supposed to make it easier to do so (named that feature Grand Central Dispatch).

Grand Central makes it easier for developers to create programs that will take full advantage of the power of multi-core Macs.
Source (http://www.macnn.com/blogs/2008/12/09/apple-files-for-grand-central-trademark.html).

But the software developers still have to do the work if it hasn't already to make their offerings multi-threaded.

And BTW, there are applications that can't benefit from multi-threaded operation. Wordprocessing immediately comes to mind (or anything else that relys on user supplied data entry, such as typing on a keyboard).

[iMacmatician]

I'd think this report was totally off except that I saw somewhere (http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/westmere-ex-t876.html) that Eagleton/Westmere-EX (MP successor to Beckton/Nehalem-EX) will be 10-core.

Now I don't really think that piece of info is reliable either. I've seen 12 cores and I think also 8 cores for Eagleton on other places.

Besides that, there's no sign of either a 10-core CPU on the Sandy Bridge roadmap, although the Sandy Bridge-EX core counts are still unknown.

[Hellhammer]

I'd think this report was totally off except that I saw somewhere (http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/westmere-ex-t876.html) that Eagleton/Westmere-EX (MP successor to Beckton/Nehalem-EX) will be 10-core.

Now I don't really think that piece of info is reliable either. I've seen 12 cores and I think also 8 cores for Eagleton on other places.

Besides that, there's no sign of either a 10-core CPU on the Sandy Bridge roadmap, although the Sandy Bridge-EX core counts are still unknown.

I can see 10-core Sandy Bridge, maybe not in the beginning but ~late 2011. Maybe even 12-core, at least with Haswell when 8-cores are quite standard

BTW, nice to see you again!

EDIT: We may see 12-core CPU within a year or so link1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#32_nm_processors) link2 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362113,00.asp). Nothing confirmed though and it may be like AMD's Magny-Cours, dual 6-core chips in one die

[iMacmatician]

I can see 10-core Sandy Bridge, maybe not in the beginning but ~late 2011. Maybe even 12-core, at least with Haswell when 8-cores are quite standard

BTW, nice to see you again!

EDIT: We may see 12-core CPU within a year or so link1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#32_nm_processors) link2 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362113,00.asp). Nothing confirmed though and it may be like AMD's Magny-Cours, dual 6-core chips in one die10 cores (1.25·2^x) seems a comparatively weird number compared to 2^x (4, 8, 16) and even 1.5·2^x (6,12) (not saying it can't be done, just that I think it's odd). Even if we don't get 10 cores, I agree we'll probably see 12 core (for Intel) next year, at least for the MP segment. Combine that with 8 core and there's the "10-core" territory covered…

[Hellhammer]

10 cores (1.25·2^x) seems a comparatively weird number compared to 2^x (4, 8, 16) and even 1.5·2^x (6,12) (not saying it can't be done, just that I think it's odd). Even if we don't get 10 cores, I agree we'll probably see 12 core (for Intel) next year, at least for the MP segment. Combine that with 8 core and there's the "10-core" territory covered…

But so far it has gone like 1, 2, 4, 6, 8,... so 10-core doesn't sound that impossible but I would certainly take 12-core instead!

Just looking at Sandy Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Variants) so there is already 8-core "confirmed" in EN category so I can see 10- or 12-core in EP and EX category.

Only time will show us though...

[Umbongo]

10 cores (1.25·2^x) seems a comparatively weird number compared to 2^x (4, 8, 16) and even 1.5·2^x (6,12) (not saying it can't be done, just that I think it's odd). Even if we don't get 10 cores, I agree we'll probably see 12 core (for Intel) next year, at least for the MP segment. Combine that with 8 core and there's the "10-core" territory covered…

I doubt Intel are working towards 10 core processors, but as the Westmere-EP quad cores are 6 core processors with 2 disabled it seems perfectly plausible a family that has 12 core processors could also include 8 or 10 core versions that involve disabled cores.

[nanofrog]

I doubt Intel are working towards 10 core processors, but as the Westmere-EP quad cores are 6 core processors with 2 disabled it seems perfectly plausible a family that has 12 core processors could also include 8 or 10 core versions that involve disabled cores.
It's also a way of being able to sell otherwise defective parts (from original design) when say 1 - 2 cores fail during the binning process.

So it's possible such parts could show, but not by original design as you indicate (created as a 10 core parts).

[Hellhammer]

It's also a way of being able to sell otherwise defective parts (from original design) when say 1 - 2 cores fail during the binning process.

So it's possible such parts could show, but not by original design as you indicate (created as a 10 core parts).

Yea, that's likely the case. Same as AMD (I'm sure Intel has as well) has done for long time, sell "defective" x4 as x2 or x3. Unlocking those extra cores is quite popular as well because you can get +3GHz quad-core for less than 100$ and I think there is motherboards with utility that automatically unlocks them.

[Ice Dragon]

Yeah I'm in the fake camp as well. I could so see a person who works at Intel rushing to get home to get on 4chan of all places to break this sort of news. *sarcasm*

[nanofrog]

Unlocking those extra cores is quite popular as well because you can get +3GHz quad-core for less than 100$...
That is nice when possible. :D Makes for great inexpensive DIY NAS systems BTW (though some might consider a Quad core overkill). ;)

[Hellhammer]

That is nice when possible. :D Makes for great inexpensive DIY NAS systems BTW (though some might consider a Quad core overkill). ;)

Yeah, it really is :cool: Those two extra cores are nice if you convert or live transcode something.

I work in a computer shop and quite many people has asked is it hard etc, but in some mobos, you just uncheck two boxes in BIOS and that's it, two extra cores for free! Very popular for gamers who are on budget as you can get a quad core gaming rig with 4GB RAM and ATI 5770 for less than 500€!

I wonder does my Core 2 Duo have extra cores :rolleyes:

[DoFoT9]

Yeah, it really is :cool: Those two extra cores are nice if you convert or live transcode something.

I work in a computer shop and quite many people has asked is it hard etc, but in some mobos, you just uncheck two boxes in BIOS and that's it, two extra cores for free! Very popular for gamers who are on budget as you can get a quad core gaming rig with 4GB RAM and ATI 5770 for less than 500€!

I wonder does my Core 2 Duo have extra cores :rolleyes:

gamers dont even need quad core!

intel/AMD SHOULD be working on 4GHz+ stock CPUs for gamers, cheap yet awsome. until the developers start producing the quad core compatible games, hardly anybody needs it

maybe your C2D has a 3rd core somewhere! goodluck unlocking that with EFI ;)

[Hellhammer]

gamers dont even need quad core!

intel/AMD SHOULD be working on 4GHz+ stock CPUs for gamers, cheap yet awsome. until the developers start producing the quad core compatible games, hardly anybody needs it

maybe your C2D has a 3rd core somewhere! goodluck unlocking that with EFI ;)

They have to leave some work for overclockers too!

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1872/lolty.jpg
I'm looking at my system information now, look what I got!
Looks like my iMac is some kind of a prototype :eek: ;)

[nanofrog]

Yeah, it really is :cool: Those two extra cores are nice if you convert or live transcode something.
I'm likely to run enough disks that a single array isn't really feasible, so the additional cores allows the software setup to run multiples simultaneously (single threaded). Assuming max of 3 arrays + 1 for OS to have dedicated cores (even if they spend time in idle states, particularly the OS).

And I'd have to look, but I'm thinking that some of the software implementations have enabled multi-threaded operation to 2 cores per instance (ZFS for example; it would make sense IMO, particularly for Z-RAID1 or 2).

I wonder does my Core 2 Duo have extra cores :rolleyes:
It would be nice, but... :( The process is more consistent the lower the core count, as there's less wafer surface per part. "Duds" just get crushed and recycled for their materials.

gamers dont even need quad core!
There are those who multitask. :eek: :p

intel/AMD SHOULD be working on 4GHz+ stock CPUs for gamers, cheap yet awsome. until the developers start producing the quad core compatible games, hardly anybody needs it
That's how chip makers see the OC capabilities they've made available IMO.

It allows them to avoid solving technical issues that will be very expensive to overcome. And when they do, you can bet it won't be cheap. :rolleyes: :p

maybe your C2D has a 3rd core somewhere! goodluck unlocking that with EFI ;)
I've the impression it's a PC, not a Mac, as the sig indicates Nehalem based (hint: DDR3).

EDIT: He beat me to it, as I was still typing. :p

[iMacmatician]

So it's possible such parts could show, but not by original design as you indicate (created as a 10 core parts).Yeah that's pretty much what I meant. I assumed the /b/ guy was talking about 10 cores by design.

Sandy Bridge EX is a 4P CPU that will be placed between Sandy Bridge EP and Westmere EX in ~mid 2011, so I doubt it will have more cores than Westmere EX. Any reason why Sandy Bridge EX is (assuming the report is true) 4P and not 8P besides market differentiation from Westmere EX? First thing I thought of was differentiation but an Intel version of AMD's 4P dual-die Magny-Cours also comes to mind.

My guesses are 6/8 cores for Sandy Bridge EP and 8/12 for Sandy Bridge EX, assuming that the latter is single-die (more likely than dual-die I think).

[DoFoT9]

They have to leave some work for overclockers too!

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1872/lolty.jpg
I'm looking at my system information now, look what I got!
Looks like my iMac is some kind of a prototype :eek: ;)
yea yea smart arse :rolleyes: ;)

I'm likely to run enough disks that a single array isn't really feasible, so the additional cores allows the software setup to run multiples simultaneously (single threaded). Assuming max of 3 arrays + 1 for OS to have dedicated cores (even if they spend time in idle states, particularly the OS).

And I'd have to look, but I'm thinking that some of the software implementations have enabled multi-threaded operation to 2 cores per instance (ZFS for example; it would make sense IMO, particularly for Z-RAID1 or 2).
would the read/write of the communications bus be the bottleneck though? i mean, even if you do have say, 3 RAIDs, you can only send one chunk of data from one HDD RAID at a time? or not :\

There are those who multitask. :eek: :p
true, im sure there are quite a few people that run algorithms whilst playing the latest games at workies! haha

That's how chip makers see the OC capabilities they've made available IMO.

It allows them to avoid solving technical issues that will be very expensive to overcome. And when they do, you can bet it won't be cheap. :rolleyes: :p
sooo to save themselves money, they drop off a few cores? well thats just stupid. its like buying a car with 8 potential cylinders, but only allowing 6! what on earth :\

I've the impression it's a PC, not a Mac, as the sig indicates Nehalem based (hint: DDR3).

EDIT: He beat me to it, as I was still typing. :p
you type too slow old man ;) :eek:. that computer is too slow for the internet usage that i require. faster plux.

[jtara]

Well, anyway, why does a gamer care about a 10-core chip to begin with? If real, this isn't a gaming chip - it's a server chip. In the past, server chips have also made good gaming chips and graphic workstation chips. But with multi-core chips, the equation has changed.

[iMacmatician]

I wonder does my Core 2 Duo have extra cores :rolleyes:maybe your C2D has a 3rd core somewhere! goodluck unlocking that with EFI ;)There's a few more in there…

[DoFoT9]

There's a few more in there…

but those "cores in a core" only work when the parent "core" is being used. ;)

[iMacmatician]

but those "cores in a core" only work when the parent "core" is being used. ;)Spoilsport… :D

[DoFoT9]

Spoilsport… :D

hey, you baked the cake - i just put the icing on it! :cool:

[nanofrog]

Any reason why Sandy Bridge EX is (assuming the report is true) 4P and not 8P besides market differentiation from Westmere EX?[/.QUOTE]
The interconnect bus would be scaled down (but done intentionally to create a product point).

[QUOTE=iMacmatician;9588988]My guesses are 6/8 cores for Sandy Bridge EP and 8/12 for Sandy Bridge EX, assuming that the latter is single-die (more likely than dual-die I think).
They're going to be single die.

would the read/write of the communications bus be the bottleneck though? i mean, even if you do have say, 3 RAIDs, you can only send one chunk of data from one HDD RAID at a time? or not :\
If there's more data than can be transferred across it, then Yes. But QPI was a substantial improvement in this regard (what we have in the Nehalem's is cut down, but it's full scale on the 75xx parts - much more band than is possible in DP systems).

sooo to save themselves money, they drop off a few cores? well thats just stupid. its like buying a car with 8 potential cylinders, but only allowing 6! what on earth :\
That's not what usually happens though. I meant in being able to get a CPU to run at higher frequencies, the current processing isn't really capable of getting high yeilds at those clocks.

That's why they bin them in the first place (well, one of the reasons). It allows them to grade the speed they're stable at, and find units with portions out of spec (or even non-functional). So the end result is both what parts are marked as what P/N (clock speed), and whether or not parts will be sent to the nano surgery section for modification (i.e. made into a P/N with fewer cores, when it had more to start with, as something failed).

[DoFoT9]

If there's more data than can be transferred across it, then Yes. But QPI was a substantial improvement in this regard (what we have in the Nehalem's is cut down, but it's full scale on the 75xx parts - much more band than is possible in DP systems)./quote]
true. but if i have 3 separate RAIDs running on the computer, each performing a particular task - data is being transferred to and from these 3 RAIDs to the CPU, along QPI etcetc, then at some stage, if bus usage is >33% from each drive, then there will be slow downs? this is regardless of clocks/cores etc.

That's not what usually happens though. I meant in being able to get a CPU to run at higher frequencies, the current processing isn't really capable of getting high yeilds at those clocks.


That's why they bin them in the first place (well, one of the reasons). It allows them to grade the speed they're stable at, and find units with portions out of spec (or even non-functional). So the end result is both what parts are marked as what P/N (clock speed), and whether or not parts will be sent to the nano surgery section for modification (i.e. made into a P/N with fewer cores, when it had more to start with, as something failed).

are the CPU upgrades even needed at the moment though? for certain things, yea ok fair enough. but what about increasing disk I/O speeds - increases that will help the greater majority. 98% of users dont require a faster CPU...

(sorry for late reply).

[nanofrog]

are the CPU upgrades even needed at the moment though? for certain things, yea ok fair enough. but what about increasing disk I/O speeds - increases that will help the greater majority. 98% of users dont require a faster CPU...

(sorry for late reply).
The interconnect bus really only benefits the enterprise market ATM, and for certain uses (important ones though), not unilatterally.

As per addressing disk I/O, it's possible to solve now. The issue is cost. SSD and/or RAID implementations would up the price more than users would pay. Since not everyone needs it, or is willing to pay (included in the system), such things are up to the user as upgrades.

There are attempts to improve matters on the cheap side (i.e. SATA 6.0Gb/s is just arriving), but that really means SSD's have to come way down in price, improve write reliability, and the capacity needs to increase as well (will still maintaining a very low cost/GB).

That's not going to happen overnight though, as it means changes in the production process aspect of the Flash chips (i.e. different forms that's more reliable such as FeRAM, and at extremely high volumes to keep prices low = not good for quick R&D recovery for such an expensive area). Fab development isn't cheap.

[iMacmatician]

According to PC Watch (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/360/112/html/1.jpg.html), Westmere-EX will indeed be 10-core.

There's also a bunch of new info on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge variants.

[Hellhammer]

According to PC Watch (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/360/112/html/1.jpg.html), Westmere-EX will indeed be 10-core.

There's also a bunch of new info on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge variants.

Interesting.. Thanks! On the other hand, there might be a 12-core and then a 10-core version of it, hard to say. I think this is still pretty much speculation as Intel has confirmed nothing, I guess?

[nanofrog]

Interesting.. Thanks! On the other hand, there might be a 12-core and then a 10-core version of it, hard to say. I think this is still pretty much speculation as Intel has confirmed nothing, I guess?
This would make the most sense to me. It's more likely the design would start out as a 12 core, and a 10 core part would be a 12 core unit with 2x disabled (to allow for otherwise failed parts during the binning process to be sold).

I'll wait for Intel to make publish something formally, or at least a leak from a reputable source before I believe that they've designed a 10 core part from the ground up (not the result of disabled cores on a larger count part). :D :p

[DoFoT9]

The interconnect bus really only benefits the enterprise market ATM, and for certain uses (important ones though), not unilatterally.
right, only the enterprise markets can benefit from the new interconnect technologies? and specific software/hardware at that i guess

As per addressing disk I/O, it's possible to solve now. The issue is cost. SSD and/or RAID implementations would up the price more than users would pay. Since not everyone needs it, or is willing to pay (included in the system), such things are up to the user as upgrades.
thats life though, you want fast - you have to pay for it. not that anybody needs those sort of speeds in the home user sense.

There are attempts to improve matters on the cheap side (i.e. SATA 6.0Gb/s is just arriving), but that really means SSD's have to come way down in price, improve write reliability, and the capacity needs to increase as well (will still maintaining a very low cost/GB).

That's not going to happen overnight though, as it means changes in the production process aspect of the Flash chips (i.e. different forms that's more reliable such as FeRAM, and at extremely high volumes to keep prices low = not good for quick R&D recovery for such an expensive area). Fab development isn't cheap.
i saw a review of a WD SATAIII hard drive, it wasnt any faster then the SATAII - give it a few months. i thought the limitations were more with the physical reading of the data, not the interface itself?

According to PC Watch (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/360/112/html/1.jpg.html), Westmere-EX will indeed be 10-core.

There's also a bunch of new info on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge variants.
does 10 or 12 core even seem logical? im just trying to think it out properly. look at RAM, its always been powers of 2. 1MB/2MB/4MB/ etc. now its 1GB/2GB/4GB/8GB etc. i presumed CPUs would be the same, 1/2/4/8/16. we are nearly at the 8 stage. maybe they will develop 10, to allow for this "binning" process that nano described.

[malcolm233391]

I wouldn't expect to see these chips in the mac pro line. They would be in or above the Nehalem-EX price ranges.

[nanofrog]

right, only the enterprise markets can benefit from the new interconnect technologies? and specific software/hardware at that i guess
For the moment, Yes, as that's the only area that has software that can utilize it. Consumer grade software is just too far behind, and will remain so for awhile given the development methods and practical limitations (i.e. retain some degree of backwards compatibility, and keep the development time and costs as low as possible, so there's not likely going to be concurrent optimizations for different CPU families without the previous family already being developed).

i saw a review of a WD SATAIII hard drive, it wasnt any faster then the SATAII - give it a few months. i thought the limitations were more with the physical reading of the data, not the interface itself?
Mechanics will prevent current HDD's from being able to utilize the additional band (1x disk per SATA port). Multiples attached via a PM enclosure (SAS expanders in the case of SAS controllers as it follows suit) could exceed 3.0Gb/s though, and it's really important for SSD's to exceed current throughputs (already hitting very near if not at the real world limit of SATA II @ 3.0Gb/s).

I wouldn't expect to see these chips in the mac pro line. They would be in or above the Nehalem-EX price ranges.
Asssuming both articles have enough grain of truth, they wouldn't be. They're MP (Multi Processor) parts and will be a newer generation of the 7xxx family, not SP or DP lines.

But my point's been that there's a difference between creating a 10 core chip from the beginning of the design process vs. a larger core count and reducing the functional core count to utilize parts that 1 - 2 cores failed the binning process. It just doesn't make financial sense to do this IMO, and is a methodology that Intel's done before.

[iMacmatician]

Interesting.. Thanks! On the other hand, there might be a 12-core and then a 10-core version of it, hard to say. I think this is still pretty much speculation as Intel has confirmed nothing, I guess?Nothing's been confirmed but PC Watch has been quite reliable in the past.

We don't know for sure, but I think it's more likely Westmere-EX is native 10-core than 12-core with 0 or 2 cores disabled because on some of the other upcoming CPUs they show differing core counts on what appears to be the same chip. (Sandy Bridge-EN…are they really going to disable up to 6 cores?? :rolleyes:) Early rumors on Westmere-EX stated 12 cores so I think that's still a possibility.

I'll wait for Intel to make publish something formally, or at least a leak from a reputable source before I believe that they've designed a 10 core part from the ground up (not the result of disabled cores on a larger count part). :D :pWe'll probably know for sure at the IDF in a few days anyway. :D

does 10 or 12 core even seem logical? im just trying to think it out properly. look at RAM, its always been powers of 2. 1MB/2MB/4MB/ etc. now its 1GB/2GB/4GB/8GB etc. i presumed CPUs would be the same, 1/2/4/8/16. we are nearly at the 8 stage. maybe they will develop 10, to allow for this "binning" process that nano described.I think it's a weird number but I don't know if there's any technical reason preventing a native 10-core CPU

The bigger surprise for me is why Intel isn't going 12/16 core with Westmere-EX, especially with 16-core Interlagos coming next year from AMD.

[Hellhammer]

The bigger surprise for me is why Intel isn't going 12/16 core with Westmere-EX, especially with 16-core Interlagos coming next year from AMD.

Maybe Intel just don't like the idea of dual chips in single die thing. It's indeed a bit of cheating IMO.

[iMacmatician]

Maybe Intel just don't like the idea of dual chips in single die thing. It's indeed a bit of cheating IMO.Intel used to do that from 2005-2008. I guess they moved to single-die while AMD moves to dual-die for high-end server. Then again one of the early reports for Haswell states in-package vector coprocessors so we might be seeing the return of dual-die there.