Intel plans for 10-core chips around the bend?

[Techhie]

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!

 

[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... ).

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" ).

 

[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.

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 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 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 link2. 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 link2. Nothing confirmed though and it may be like AMD's Magny-Cours, dual 6-core chips in one die

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…

 

[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 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.