Slashdot Log In
Intel Pledges 80 Core Processor in 5 Years
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Sep 26, 2006 03:16 PM
from the thinking-of-the-gaming dept.
from the thinking-of-the-gaming dept.
ZonkerWilliam writes "Intel has developed an 80 core processor with claims 'that can perform a trillion floating point operations per second.'" From the article: "CEO Paul Otellini held up a silicon wafer with the prototype chips before several thousand attendees at the Intel Developer Forum here on Tuesday. The chips are capable of exchanging data at a terabyte a second, Otellini said during a keynote speech. The company hopes to have these chips ready for commercial production within a five-year window."
Related Stories
[+]
Terabyte Drive to Debut Later this Year 131 comments
mytrip writes to mention the news that Hitachi will be releasing a terabyte storage drive this year. "These large drives also will get incorporated into televisions and personal video recorders. Hitachi, among others, already sells TVs with integrated hard drives in Japan and other markets. While large drives start out expensive, the price drops relatively quickly. Computer makers pay something in the 30-cent range for a gigabyte when buying hard drives, Healy said. The price at retail is around 50 cents or less."
[+]
Intel Shows Off 80-core Processor 222 comments
thejakebrain writes "Intel has built its 80-core processor as part of a research project, but don't expect it on your desktop any time soon. The company's CTO, Justin Rattner, held a demonstration of the chip for a group of reports last week. Intel will be presenting a paper on the project at the International Solid State Circuits Conference in San Francisco this week. 'The chip is capable of producing 1 trillion floating-point operations per second, known as a teraflop. That's a level of performance that required 2,500 square feet of large computers a decade ago. Intel first disclosed it had built a prototype 80-core processor during last fall's Intel Developer Forum, when CEO Paul Otellini promised to deliver the chip within five years.'" Update: 06/01 14:37 GMT by Z : This article is about four months old. We discussed this briefly last year, but search didn't show that we discussed in February.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ok, it HAS to be said... (Score:3, Funny)
(Runs in shame.)
Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (Score:5, Funny)
I never petaflop I didn't like.
Parent
Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (Score:4, Funny)
Personally I'm going to wait for 2013 when the 160 core CPU's are finally out. Only a fool will be in 5 years
Parent
Re:Ok, it HAS to be said... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
The More Things Change.... (Score:4, Funny)
The condensated core will also be subject to the laws of quantum mechanics in that, before a program has finished running, there will be no way to know if it will crash or not. Microsoft plans to leverage this to further stablise their latest version of Windows. Security experts worried about the onboard "Quantum-Threading" technology redirecting portions of thread output randomly to other threads, were dismissed as not being "forward looking".
Meanwhile, AMDs new 1W, 128 core, 4098bit chip with 1GB L2 cache retails for almost 50% higher than Intel's Bose-Wintel chips, and has seen sluggish sales since the arrival of the new technology, despite its lower running cost that the 5MW Intel chip. When asked for comment, AMD's spokesman added; "Ch@#&t!! What the f**k is wrong with you people!??! Our chips save you money!! F@#*&^g cheapskates!!!"
Upon hearing the news, Linux founder and lead developer Linus Torvalds(51) said: "We're not rewriting the kernel for that monstrosity." Intel representative declared that the company was "dissapointed" in Torvald's remarks. Apple cofounder Steve Jobs(65), when asked whether Apple intended to release a the new Mac based on the chipset, declined to comment as he went about his daily 5km morning run. Apple pundits widely believe that the new Mac will run on a quad core Bose-Wintel Condensate, and to complement this will sport a blazing white, ultra smooth case made out of Bose-Einstien condensate, the fifth phase of matter.
In a related story, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates(65), assaulted a technology reporter at a company press conference disccusing the new chip. Details are sketchy, but reports mention that one of Mr Gates older quotes about appropriate amounts of computer memory was brought up. Remond police have declined to comment on the case.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is 1994 [wikipedia.org] soon enough for you?
-jcr
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
no thanks....
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
And get here ahead of it, so we'll be ready.
KFG
Parent
It's the bandwidth, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as they,,,, (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll rather wait and see what I can actually buy in 5 years. No need to trust a vendor so far in the future what they can do.
When will HDD's catch up (Score:3, Insightful)
PAIIINNN (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple and Microsoft and BSD better hurry and scale (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple and Microsoft and BSD better hurry and sc (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, good point. I bet Intel never once stopped to think about THAT.
I sincerely doubt this will make it anywhere near Fry's or CompUSA, assuming it launches in +5 years. Most likely academic, corporate (think of the old days and mainframe number crunchers on wallstreet), and scientific.
Simply cheap teraflops for custom applications.
Of course, everyone thought it was a great idea when Cell announced they could do 64 or more cores. But since this is
Re:Apple and Microsoft and BSD better hurry and sc (Score:5, Informative)
The BSD projects, Apple and Microsoft have five years. Microsoft announced awhile back they want to work on supercomputing versions of windows. Perhaps they will have something by then. Apple and Intel are bed partners now. I'm sure intel will help them.
What this announcement really means is that computer programmers must learn how to break up problems more effectively to take advantage of threading. Computer science programs need to start teaching this shit. A quick you can do it, go get a master's degree to learn more isn't going to cut it anymore. There's no going back now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple and Microsoft and BSD better hurry and sc (Score:5, Informative)
So think more like Cell with 80 SPEs. Great for lots of vector processing.
Parent
Shame BeOS Died... (Score:5, Informative)
Not that you couldn't do threading right in Windows, OS X, or Linux. But BeOS made it practically mandatory: each window was a new thread, as well as an application-level thread. Plus any others you wanted to create. So to make a crappy application that locks up when it is trying to do something (like update the state of 500+ nodes in a list; ARD3 I'm looking at you) actually took skill and dedication. The default state tended to be applications that wouldn't lockup while they worked, which is really nice.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As was: typedef enum {
B_BEBOX_PLATFORM = 0, B_MAC_PLATFORM, B_AT_CLONE_PLATFORM,
B_ENIAC_PLATFORM, B_APPLE_II_PLATFORM, B_CRAY_PLATFORM, B_LISA_PLATFORM,
B_TI_994A_PLATFORM, B_TIMEX_SINCLAIR_PLATFORM, B_ORAC_1_PLATFORM, B_HAL_PLATFORM
} platform_type;
Gillette Razor Joke.. (Score:5, Funny)
I guess the new saying will be... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait till per-core licensing becomes popular
That's 80 FP cores per processor (Score:5, Insightful)
$$$ for Oracle (Score:5, Funny)
nVidia should be worried.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The other thing is that with that many cores and all the SIMD and graphics instructions that are built into current processors it looks to me like the obvious reason to have 80 cores is to get rid of graphics coprocessors. You do no need a GPU and a bunch of shaders if you can throw 60 processors at the job. You do need a really good bus, but hey, not much of a problem compared to getting 80 cores working on one chip.
With that kind of computer power you can throw a core at any thing you currently use a special chip for. You can get rid of sound cards, network cards, graphics cards... all you need is lots of cores, lots of RAM, a fast interconnect, and some interface logic. Everything else is just a waste of silicon.
History has shown that general purpose processing always wins in the end.
I was talking to some folks about this just last Saturday. They didn't beleive me. I don't expect y'all to believe me either.
Stonewolf
Re:nVidia should be worried.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that general purpose processors will ever completely replace special purpose hardware. There is simply too much to be gained by implementing certain features directly on the chip.
Parent
History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel will create the "CoreScale" technology and make 4, then 8, then 16 cores and up while their competitors are increasing operations per clock cycle per watt per core. Consumers won't know any better, so they will buy the Intel 64-core processor that runs hotter and slower than the cheaper clone chip that has only 8 cores. Then when Intel starts runs up against a wall and gets their butt-kicked they will revert to the original Core 2 Duo design and start competing again.
Oh, and I predict that AMD will release a new rating called the "core plus rating" so their CPUs will be an Athlon Core 50+ meaning it has the equivalent of 50 cores. Queue n00bs who realize they have only 8 cores and complain.
And to think I didn't like history in school. Maybe I just hadn't seen enough of it to understand.
Sooo... where's the software for this cpu power? (Score:5, Insightful)
- We were promised Virtual Reality with VR Helmets more than 10 years ago - is this _just_ a matter of hardware?
- Smart voice recognition? Anyone tried it lately? Anyone tried to write pretty standard letters with it? Desastrous.
- Intelligent assistents, understanding the user's needs? Operating system/application wizards that improve it's capabilties while you're working with 'em?
The applications are missing, they're faster, more colourful, higher resolution, antialiased... but still DUMB.
Computers are already pretty powerful, please start and make the software smarter, not faster.
CPU power is not that important anymore.
Re:Sooo... where's the software for this cpu power (Score:5, Insightful)
Hah! I am forced to disagree in the strongest possible terms..
Speaking as a former production artist and current art director, the last couple of generations of graphics software have introduced powerful tools that streamline my workflow in ways I find it hard to even fathom. Ok, let's talk about Illustrator, for example. From 10 -> CS Adobe added in-application 3D rendering of any 2D artwork onto geometric primitives. This is something I used to either have to fake, or take out of the application and into a 3D renderer in order to render simple bottle/can/box packaging proofs. Marketing wants to make a copy change? Make the change to the 2D art and the 3D rendering is updated in real time. Oh, and the new version of InDesign recognizes that the art has been updated and reloads it into the brochure layout. Automatically.
This is just one feature out of literally hundreds. This one alone saves me an hour or two a day. Seriously, there are projects I can take on today that would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. Pre-press for a 700 page illustrated book project has gone from a week of painful, tedious work down to 30 minutes, of which 20 is letting the PDF render. Seriously.
Here's the thing, unless you use a piece of software all day, every day, you're really not in any position to comment on how much it has or hasn't changed.
Photoshop (et. al.) are software for professionals, despite the number of dilettantes out there using them for sprucing up their MySpace page.
m-
Parent
In other news.. (Score:3, Funny)
But how do they interconnect? (Score:5, Informative)
The big question is how these processors interconnect. Cached shared memory probably won't scale up that high. An SGI study years ago indicated that 20 CPUs was roughly the upper limit before the cache synchronization load became the bottleneck. That number changes somewhat with the hardware technology, but a workable 80-way shared-memory machine seems unlikely.
There are many alternatives to shared memory, and most of them, historically, are duds. The usual idea is to provide some kind of memory copy function between processors. The IBM Cell is the latest incarnation of this idea, but it has a long and disappointing history, going back to the nCube, the BBN Butterfly, and even the ILLIAC IV from the 1960s. Most of these, including the Cell, suffered from not having enough memory per processor.
Historically, shared-memory multiprocessors work, and loosely coupled network based clusters work. But nothing in between has ever been notably successful.
One big problem has typically been that the protection hardware in non-shared-memory multiprocessors hasn't been well worked out. The Infiniband people are starting to think about this. They have a system for setting up one way queues between machines in such a way that appliations can queue data for another machine without going through the OS, yet while retaining memory protection. That's a good idea. It's not well integrated into the CPU architecture, because it's an add-on as an I/O device. But it's a start.
You need two basic facilities in a non-shared memory multiprocessor - the ability to make a synchronous call (like a subroutine call) to another processor, and the ability to queue bulk data in a one-way fashion. (Yes, you can build one from the other, but there's a major performance hit if you do. You need good support for both.) These are the same facilities one has for interprocess communication in operating systems that support it well. (QNX probably leads in this; Minix 3 could get there. If you have to implement this, look at how QNX does it, and learn why it was so slow in Mach.)
Re:But how do they interconnect? MPI (Score:3, Interesting)
What you're asking for is pretty standard stuff in the high end, where hundreds of processors is quite common. Cache coherency is a killer, and so they have died out long ago in the high end. when you think about it, CC basically requires a crossbar switch style memory archictecture which ex
Re:Hey now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why oh why won't Intel spend their research dollars on something useful, like a bus architecture that can actually keep up with present performance levels?
Yes, because if Intel is working on one thing, that means they can't work on anything else at all anymore...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Next!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's nothing wrong with bus architecture in my opinion.
I stand at the stop, the digital sign says the bus will be along in 4 minutes.
4 minutes later the bus turns up.
I don't see what the problem is.
Re:76 too many cores? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as Gates couldn't imagine what anyone would want with more memory than 640KB, we can't imagine what people will do with 80 cores. I'm confident in predicting that they'll find ways to use every bit of that capacity and demand more.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ust as Gates couldn't imagine what anyone would want with more memory than 640KB, we can't imagine what people will do with 80 cores. I'm confident in predicting that they'll find ways to use every bit of that capacity and demand more.
He wasn't asking what 80 cores are good for. He's asking why we need 80 cores on one chip. As opposed to 40 dual-core processors, for example. And it's a good question. I imagine that these 80 cores can communicate extremely fast between their nearest neighbors. This could
Not enough demand (Score:4, Insightful)
The costs to make use of 80 cores (you're going to need hugely complex chips and hugely complex memory buses) mean that these chips will be severe overkill for PCs and will be outside any typical user's price range. They're only going to be useful for a a few servers in very niche applications. If there's only demand for, say, 10,000 of these chips in the world then they're going to be extremely expensive.
I smell marketing horseshit. I think they're just saying this to get people to start thinking of multi-core options. Most people don't see the need for multi-core (even 2 core) systems. By saying you'll get 80 cores in 5 years makes people start thinking that they should start using 2 or 4 cores now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
CPU speed is not the issue folks! (Score:3, Informative)
No they don't. Right now I'm building a Linux kernel and it is only using approx 35% of the CPU. Why? Because my memory and disk are not fast enough. If I swapped out the CPU and kept everything else the same, it would not go much faster. Sure, with a faster motherboard etc I could get better speed, but that is very difficult to scale to 80 cores
As I said before.... to get 80 cores working properly is going to require huge amounts of memory as well as hugely
Re:Amdahl's Law (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 80s and early 90s, most of the bus speed limitations were due to capacitance issues (ie. how fast can we switch a transistor and discharge the capcaitance). We can make things faster by reducing capacitance through various measures. Now memory buses and speed are now getting so fast that they're starting to get constrained by the speed of light etc so it is getting harder to find large multiplier improvements.
I think there is still a lot of room for new stuff, maybe twice or four times what we have now. The biggest impovements that can be made, however, are in power reduction etc.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, I wasn't pointing to any particular multiplier. I was pointing out that, even if you are right that, when released, these would be prohibitively expensive for most purchasers, that history suggests that processors go from "prohibitively expensive for most user", to "common", to "you really need to upgrade that old piece of crap" pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure this is 80 general-purpose processing cores: the article claims that there are "80 floating point cores". Clearly, the big selling points of the chip are, in Intel's view, its data transfer at 1 TB/sec, and its floating point speed at 1 TFLOP.
An 80-core chip with RAM attached directly to the proces
Re:76 too many cores? (Score:4, Interesting)
A basic strategy would be for the OS to devote each process to its own processor.
This would reduce the need for TLB/cache flushes or eliminate context switches entirely. The whole machine would be really snappy.
That said, for a desktop machine, this is a huge amount of overkill, but with economies of scale being what they are, we'll probably have this power available soon.
What I'd like to see more though, is extra functionality in hardware rather than more of it. Wouldn't it be great if hardware was able to handle some of the things an OS is now used for, like memory (de)allocation? Or if we could tag memory according to type? Or if there were finer-grained controls than page-level?
Parent
Re:Moores Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Moores Law (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)