Intel Targets 32-Core Processors in 2010

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Easy Rider, Aug 18, 2006.

  1. Easy Rider macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    #1
    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/10/intel_32_core_processor/

    All I want to say is, thank god the GHz war is over, and now the core war is begining.

    People have finally begun to realize that pretty much everything after 1.5 GHz was useless in improving the experiance. Throw in an extra core however and the experiance changes drastically.

    Yes we don't have mainstream multithreaded applications, but we do multitask like a bat out of hell!
     
  2. Rapmastac1 macrumors 65816

    Rapmastac1

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Location:
    In the Depths of the SLC!
    #2
    Crap man, crap. Now all we need are multi threaded apps, we still haven't even gotten them for Dual Core yet (Well in the mainstream market).
     
  3. spicyapple macrumors 68000

    spicyapple

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
  4. SuperSnake2012 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    NY
    #4
    What are we going to need that many cores for?! :eek:
     
  5. mckvakk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
  6. mromero macrumors member

    mromero

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    well one thing I can think of right off the bat is, HD Video ....
     
  7. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #7
    I know! I mean, what could one possibly need more than 640 KB of RAM, or more than 1 GHz processor for?! :p
     
  8. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #8
    But can they accomplish this without having a liquid nitrogen cooled system? :p :rolleyes: Seems like 32 cores would generate a lot of heat. The MBP have only 2 cores and it's hot as an oven.
     
  9. apple1984 macrumors member

    apple1984

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Location:
    usa
    #9
    Even without multi-threaded apps, all those cores would exponentially decreaase the time it takes to edit large amounts of HD video, or edit large-scale RAW photos, or produce music in a lossless codec.
     
  10. Clydefrog macrumors 6502a

    Clydefrog

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    Pittsburgh,PA
  11. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #11
    Uh... not unless you were doing all those at once. For more cores to help with those things, the app you're using would need to be multi-threaded.
     
  12. bradc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Location:
    Canader eh
    #12
    The main beneifit right away would be scientific research. At my work we have a huge XServe processing farm for simulating aerodynamics, flow, stress, reactions etc etc and it runs 24/7. There are two IT guys, one Maitenance guy and one Research Engineer (myself included, once every 2 weeks you do a night shift) there 24/7 to take care of the 'baby'.

    It would also be amazing for Human Gene/DNA research. I'm sure Pharmaceutical companies would be in need of these.
     
  13. RichP macrumors 68000

    RichP

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Location:
    Motor City
    #13
    Im sure that software is going to adapt to this change as well; in the PC world, its been only the past year where more than one processor core has been shipping in quantity (with Apple, we have had mainstream dual CPU machines for quite some time)
     
  14. Silentwave macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    #14
    yes the MBP runs a bit hot, but then again it is a very small enclosure. If you take a look at heat per clock and core in the pst 2-3 years you will see how much better we are today. you can get a server level dual core Xeon chip (5148) that gives off only a bit more heat than a laptop chip. given another 4 years or so I don't doubt Intel will be able to have well controlled heat.
     
  15. MacProGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    #16

    Um... have a little foresight... will ya?

    After all, we used to say (or, rather, idiot Bill Gates) "Who would EVER need more than 640K???"

    ALWAYS, ALWAYS push yourself and technology further.

    After all, why not just say "Why do we need nice big houses? Trailers work just fine to store your stuff and give you a place to sleep..."

    :rolleyes:
     
  16. steamboat26 macrumors 65816

    steamboat26

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Location:
    Arlington VA
    #17
    that sounds so cool. Just imagine, something out performing a 3 ghz mac pro :eek:
     
  17. coday182 macrumors regular

    coday182

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Location:
    Jamestown, IN
    #18
    how many people do you think will post stuff like "what to do? Should I buy the MBP today with the Intel core solo or wait till 2010 for the 32 core processors?"
     
  18. Lollypop macrumors 6502a

    Lollypop

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Location:
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    #19
    Intel has been doing a lot of cool things lately, but I remember not so long ago when everyone loved AMD, I will wait and see for 2010 to see if they actually deliver on their promise, and if there is an actualy tanigible performance benefit on the mainstream side of things before I get excited :cool:
     
  19. illegalprelude macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #20
    EMP for the win! :D
     
  20. plinkoman macrumors 65816

    plinkoman

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #21
    wait until rev.b :p
     
  21. JPT macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    #22
    I found the fan for this thing! This isn't including the heatsink!

    [​IMG]
     
  22. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #23
    Actually I rather miss the GHz wars. Clock frequency is easy*. It Just Goes Faster®. Adding cores is what you do when you've run into the clock frequency/power wall and have to find a new way to make things faster. It's really not as effective for most stuff.


    *from the point of view of app/OS developers and users. From the point of view of chip designers it's gotten rather difficult lately ;)
     
  23. aswitcher macrumors 603

    aswitcher

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Canberra OZ
    #24
    Core Wars ;)

    I wonder what I would really need more than 4 or 8 cores for except for rendering video.
     
  24. Lollypop macrumors 6502a

    Lollypop

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Location:
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    #25
    My thoughs exactly, when I send mails, and run itunes and surf the web my "lowly" 1.3ghz G4 doesnt even hit 50%, sure if I add a video clip it might start putting strain on the machine but the core race to me is a alternative to the Mhz race, and with so many people getting by with low speeds I think many people will get by with a low core count.
     

Share This Page