Go Back   Hardware Canucks > NEWS & REVIEWS > Rumor Mill

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2008, 01:11 PM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, Ontario Canada
Posts: 153
Default

Well I don't know were I saw it for 2009 buy I did quickly find this. Intel pledges 80 cores in five years - CNET News.com
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old April 19, 2008, 05:21 PM
vdf22's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 146
Default

I don't really believe that. But we'll see when we get there, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old April 23, 2008, 11:11 AM
Mulder's Avatar
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vdf22 View Post
I don't really believe that. But we'll see when we get there, I suppose.

I agree I don't think were going to see them anytime soon. Quad Core heatsinks are big enough,I am not sure I want to see what the heatsink on that thing looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old April 23, 2008, 12:03 PM
DK2 DK2 is offline
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GTA
Posts: 821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sswilson View Post
Actually, when you think of what most folks are doing with their computers these days, multi-cores makes a lot more sense than higher clock speed.

Multi-cores might not benefit most gamers as those are looking for pure processing power, but imagine how well multi-cores work for the average computer user who wants to run 6 or 7 non-intensive apps at once. Rather than having to share processor time, each app can have a dedicated core all to itself.

I'm not sure if XP is smart enough to do that, but folks who know a bit about the way things work can easily set it up in task manager to run individual apps on separate cores.

That my freinds (IMO) is the wave of the future!! :)
Windows does process affinity automatically; you can bypass it to run on a particular core if you want though with the Task manager.
Its actually thread affinity that XP does though, meaning if a process opens multiple threads they may run on different cores, if allowed.
Right now I have 51 processes, with 507 threads. If I open Outlook, I have 52 processes and 521 threads.
Most programs are multi-threaded, and windows will automatically assign them to the cores available according to load.
I wont even go into games here,
but Id love to have my 500+ threads spread out over 12 cores rather than just 2.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old April 23, 2008, 09:53 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 35
Default

It,s definately getting interesting I remember reading intel talking about a 80 core cpu last year.. But sandy bridge due out in 2010 I believe is scalaeable to possibly 32 cores at upto 4GHZ on each core..The next few years are going to be interesting I just hope the software developers can keep up with the hardware..
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old April 29, 2008, 04:53 AM
Dashock's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,938
Default

Yea Intel said they would have around 88 cores i read in article but im not sure if the date was 2009 i think they said something like 10 years from now or 5 years from now i read it awhile back.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old May 25, 2008, 06:09 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Holland, MI
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NuxTux View Post
Didn't Intel say that there going to have 80 or 88 cores by the end of 2009?
Well they're saying Larrabee will have between 4-24 cores, based on the Pentium MMX if I'm not mistaken. Not sure how many the gfx card version of Larrabee will have, probably more than fewer.
__________________
-------------------------
Decembermouse
Voodoo Envy M:860, Laguna Seca Blue, Voodoo Classic Tattoo
Athlon 64 3400+ Clawhammer Core @ 2.2GHz
Mobility Radeon 9700, 128mb. 1680 by 1050
1024mb PC2700
60gb 7200 Hitachi HGST Travelstar
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old May 27, 2008, 06:03 AM
magictorch's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Annapolis Valley, NS
Posts: 1,835
Default why is it so difficult.......

Just wondering why it is so difficult to make use of 4 plus cores for gaming--not a rant or anything. Just curious as to what the constraints are on the programmers.

Seems like software programming is pretty inflexible for some reason when it comes to games-is it to do with the 32 or 64 bit operating system?

Supercomputers seem to make use of 10's of thousands of cores to run simulations but I guess they have some serious resources available for software development and branched off from the "architecture" that we use a long time ago.
__________________
White Night:: i7920 (4ghz), Rampage III extreme (A1), Mushkin XP 1600 (9,9,9,24),SLI480., white MM horizon.
CPU: Feser 220 int.|Apogee GTZ|S.Res.rev2| MCP655.

GPU: PA120.3|S.Res.rev2|2x EK FC blocks| MCP655.

Last edited by magictorch; May 27, 2008 at 05:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old May 27, 2008, 05:28 PM
MVP
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darksideleader View Post
When did they say that?

As impressive as 12 cores sounds for mainstream computing, AMD seems to be lacking power and most games are not even quad core optmized yet, by the end of this year, we might start to see some quad-core optmization, not 6 core and far from 12 cores.

Though 12 cores on one die will be great for businesses and servers, games now are mostly GFX reliant anyway.

i was under the impression software was either designed for single core use or multiple core use.....as in it doesn't matter if you have 2 cores or 200000000000 cores because once the software is designed for multiple cores it will use all the available cores

please someone do correct me if im wrong
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old May 31, 2008, 12:04 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5
Default

Ill wait for 128 cores in 2018
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes