Intel Targets 32-Core Processors in 2010

Easy Rider

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 15, 2006
31
0
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!
 

KingYaba

macrumors 68040
Aug 7, 2005
3,416
12
Up the irons
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.
 

apple1984

macrumors member
Aug 19, 2006
65
0
usa
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.
 

crazzyeddie

macrumors 68030
Dec 7, 2002
2,790
0
Florida, USA
apple1984 said:
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.
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.
 

bradc

macrumors 6502
Mar 17, 2006
263
0
Canader eh
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.
 

RichP

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2003
1,573
11
Motor City
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)
 

Silentwave

macrumors 68000
May 26, 2006
1,584
0
Gainesville, FL
KingYaba said:
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.
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.
 

MacProGuy

macrumors regular
Aug 16, 2006
137
0
SuperSnake2012 said:
What are we going to need that many cores for?! :eek:

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:
 

coday182

macrumors regular
Jul 26, 2006
237
0
Jamestown, IN
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?"
 

Lollypop

macrumors 6502a
Sep 13, 2004
829
0
Johannesburg, South Africa
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:
 

JPT

macrumors regular
May 4, 2006
247
0
I found the fan for this thing! This isn't including the heatsink!

 

Catfish_Man

macrumors 68030
Sep 13, 2001
2,579
1
Portland, OR
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 ;)
 

Lollypop

macrumors 6502a
Sep 13, 2004
829
0
Johannesburg, South Africa
aswitcher said:
Core Wars ;)

I wonder what I would really need more than 4 or 8 cores for except for rendering video.
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.