Best offers
|
ProMagix W350 High Performance... | $4095.00 Velocity Micro More info |
|
xw4300 Workstation (3.4GHz Pentium 4... | $196.84 Compuvest More info |
|
Dell Precision T3400 375W 64bit... | $599.00 Dell Small Business Systems More info |
|
ThinkStation D20 - Intel Xeon E5540 | $5453.99 CDW.com More info |
|
Mobile Precision M6400n Computer... | $1708.00 Dell Small Business Systems More info |
How To: Building Your Own Render Farm
You already know that it can take thousands of processing cores hours to render a single frame of film animation, but did you know it's possible for freelance artists and small studios to benefit from the same sort of parallelism? We show you how! Read More
-
Setting Up Your First 64-Bit Digital Audio Workstation
You already know how to build a PC. But do you know how to take desktop hardware components and turn them into a digital audio workstation? John Brandon discusses how he pieced together his latest musical creation, along with the accompanying software. Read More
-
Supermicro 5046A-XB: X58 Workstation Barebones
We’ve already established that Intel’s Core i7 is the way to go for enthusiasts looking for lots of A/V encoding muscle. Supermicro takes advantage of that commanding position to build its own X58-based workstation barebones. Read More
- intel xeon roadmap
- nehalem xeon mac pro
- intel octacore
- l3 cache allocation
- xeon nehalem
- xeon roadmap
- overclock xeon nehalem
- xeon chips
- quickpath interconnect
- intel release schedule
- xeon nehalem motherboard
- intel server roadmap 2009
- xeon nehalem workstation
- dual socket intel xeon nehalem
- intel xeon workstation roadmap
Partners
The Games selection
violent :
More Mindless Violence
Basic shooting game, but still so powerful! Use the mouse to take aim and shoot at the little beasties before they get to you. Use Space to reload....
|
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
Sponsored links
Intel Hints at Octa-Core CPUs this Year
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (38) |
- Share
In an interview with IDG, Intel's Shannon Poulin gave an update on when the company will ship its first octa-core processor--that's eight cores.
With the state of the economy in virtual shambles, the stark reality is that huge corporations are not only laying off employees left and right, but pulling back on advertisement spending and cutting cost in various ways. It's truly remarkable to see manufacturers continue on despite the financial instability, to stay on a path that may or may not bring financial success although the process may be a bit slower than usual.
Despite the drop in consumer spending, Intel maintains innovation, refusing to stagger in a difficult recession. Shannon Poulin, the Xeon platform director in Intel's Server Products Group, reaffirms Intel's determination by laying down a somewhat vague roadmap for the Xeon (Nehalem) EX release schedule. "What you'll get at the beginning of next year--late this year or the beginning of next year--will be the push into the four-socket, eight-socket, and above space," she told IDG News Services in an interview.
Poulin also reaffirmed that the recession has nothing to do with the Xeon EX schedule, noting that the company usually sees a lag between the two-socket and four-socket (and above) releases. Previously the "historic" low was seven to eight months in-between, with the largest gap lasting around a year and a half. She said the release of the Xeon EX falls "right in the middle," referring to the shipment of Nehalem-based Xeon chips back in March.
Intel's Nehalem EP, now available in Mac Pro workstations, is the latest line of x86 server chips designed for workstations and servers that consist of one or two processors, with up to four cores on a single processor. The Nehalem EX architecture takes the design one step further and supports servers with four or more processors. Not only will they have up to eight core on a single chip, but will feature support for Intel's QuickPath Interconnect technology and utilize an on-chip memory controller.
Earlier this year, the company revealed that the eight-core Xeon processor will feature a whopping 2.3 billion transistors, manufactured using the 45nm process. The Xeon EX will also utilize Intel's simultaneous multithreading technology that will support two simultaneous threads per core (although this may decrease performance by a meager percentage). The processor will also feature four point-to-point quick path interconnect links, and L3 cache consisting of eight sections that will be shared by all eight cores, allocated by a central hub router. The upcoming processor will also require a new platform with LGA-1567 sockets.
Unfortunately, at this point, there is a six month window planned for the Xeon EX release, starting around October 2009 until March 2010. That, of course, is subject to change, as the company has not released an official street date despite Poulin's predictions. When released, the octa-core Xeon will be the company's first, and most likely the flagship for some time to come. It will be exciting to see the Xeon EX processor in action. Unfortunately, the planned release is still a long ways away, so we'll just have to pacify ourselves with comic books and donuts until then.
Source : Tom's Hardware US
Unfortunately, the planned release is still a long ways away, so we'll just have to pacify ourselves with comic books and donuts until then.
That's actually pretty funny. Also...
...shouldn't it be octo-core, not octa-core?
hmmm.... what am I going to need 8-cores in my PC for?... playing games?.. that only use 1-2 cores.. running virus scnning at the same time? Ripping movies or making MPEG4 at the background? doing filtering or 3D modeling of my images at the background?... hmm... sounds cool... but guess I will need mind connected twin to enjoy this kind of "super" computer..lol How am I going to play game(s), running office, licenting music, while making MPEG4 and building 3D model at teh same time?... lol
This sounds like another example when the hardware development is way ahead of software development. The time when all the goodies are just eye candies... they melt in our eyes but not in our mouths....>_<
lol
All the Mac Pros at my college have 8 cores and it's blazin' fast esp when I'm editing photos using Photoshop there. Now I have an Phenom II 810 so I'm not too envious as long as it gets my job done relatively quickly.
I think for most people quadcores should last us for at least 3 - 4 years before we actually need to jump to octocore. I'd even say sexacore (6 cores) would be already pushing it before we really need 8 cores.
8 cores? pfft. I want 32.
8 cores? pfft. I want 32.
Well..
8 cores x 4 sockets = 32 cores
But this sounds like something intended for servers, nothing suggesting 8 core desktops
I want 8 cores. I am already having to decide what processes have to share one of the four I have. Then again, I also need to double my memory or even quadruple it in order to run all the extra applications I am dreaming of running at once.
What about that 80-core CPU they have touting?Is that just a server chip or will it become mainstream?....possibly in the next gen consols in a few years?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We_PRtRfiNs
Most of the population do not even need 4 cores, let alone 8. But hey, I wouldn't mind :3
2.3 billion?
Damn. And here I thought the 1.4 billion transistor GT200 was a huge chip.
deltatux:
Wake up! They are touching 8 core in ONE package... not TWO chips...
Everybody else:
Have you people not heard yet about MULTITHREAD OPTIMIZED SOFTWARE?
Damn... people that comment news seems to forget basic facts... Come on people, start to think a little before commenting...
Even UT3 that's not THAT new scales with processor core count... imagine the next year's software... Almost EVERY computer now have at least TWO cores, so core scalability is becoming a MUST in software dev...
In 2 and a half years, 8 cores is gonna be the mainstream, and hexa core is gonna be the premium systems...
Well they have to keep pushing. If they become complacent again AMD will pass them. I'm not sure if AMD has really learned that lesson as it happened to them when they were so busy enjoying the success of their 90nm Athlon X2s they slowed down 65nm development (a contributing factor to the delay of the Phenom and its TLB debacle) and decreased IPC in their 65nm Brisbane.
BTW, 8 cores?... hmmm... that kind of remind me of the CELL processor (the one in the PS3)...lol.... 1 PPE + 8 SPE.... hmm... can we call it a 9 core processor, too?...
Though it is really quite a different story... but just can't help not to think about it...lol
Comics and donuts... I love you now.
What are they supposed to do? Say the economy isn't so great and give up making money?
This and Parrish making a joke out of a guy being killed in front of his computer(see other news article) only confirm his complete lack of writing talent and taste....that and all his articles follow the exact same format. Vague lead-in with broad references, company specific facts that most people know, the actual article, trying to end on a light note. Every single Kevin Parrish article is identical
Heh all we need is the desktop variant, and programmers to make use of 64-bit and multi-threading PROPERLY
Didn't Intel promise 50 core CPU's by 2012? Really this is simply getting out of hand. If software developers don't start catching up and making use out of these CPU's who is going to buy them?
This and Parrish making a joke out of a guy being killed in front of his computer(see other news article) only confirm his complete lack of writing talent and taste....that and all his articles follow the exact same format. Vague lead-in with broad references, company specific facts that most people know, the actual article, trying to end on a light note. Every single Kevin Parrish article is identical
I second that. I just read the other article in which a guy got killed in front of his computer. Editors, please take care of this guy. He is ruining the forums. NONE of his articles are good to read..
If you don't use 4 or even 2 cores that doesn't mean that 8 core systems shouldn't pop up. That's like saying there shouldn't be any geforce/radeon because of IGC. They are so many tasks like rendering, compiling etc. I'm not going to buy this though as I'm waiting for larabee or opencl since my work involves data parallel apps...
Does it actually make much of a difference for 95% of the software out there?
I think all chipmakers and software vendors should get together and start implementing multi-threaded programming first. What's 8 cores if we can't use more than 2 or 4, right?
If you don't use 4 or even 2 cores that doesn't mean that 8 core systems shouldn't pop up. That's like saying there shouldn't be any geforce/radeon because of IGC. They are so many tasks like rendering, compiling etc. I'm not going to buy this though as I'm waiting for larabee or opencl since my work involves data parallel apps... And no for most things hardware isn't fat enough like raytracing and real time hair rendering
All the Mac Pros at my college have 8 cores and it's blazin' fast esp when I'm editing photos using Photoshop there. Now I have an Phenom II 810 so I'm not too envious as long as it gets my job done relatively quickly.I think for most people quadcores should last us for at least 3 - 4 years before we actually need to jump to octocore. I'd even say sexacore (6 cores) would be already pushing it before we really need 8 cores.
hehe: sexacore
going from 1 to 2 cores was a bigger performance boost than any because it meant that your 40+ background processors could fight over one of the cores, but your main process now got one all to itself, all other advancements (from 2 to 4 ect) require that your main process actually uses multiple threads, this is not always a simple thing to do, and there can be quite a bit of overhead in making an app thread safe, which means technically apps are now less efficient
PLZ stop posting ignorant comments "games only use 1 or 2 cores" have u ever played ut3, Dawn of war 2, Crysis, call of duty 5, Warhammer because those games and more are heavily multi threaded as well as games coming out in the future.
4 cores and above allow large performance gains as long the program is optimized to take advantage of it which is becoming more and more common, so 8 cores will just allow game developers to make even more amazing looking games.
wow, imagine the games. the physics will be amazing. realtime world deformation. the explosions. imagine 16, 32, 48, 64, ect cores... morpheus, plug me in... ;-)
then again we are one step closer to cybernet, terminators and apocalyptic wasteland.
Lol,, people kill me with "why do i need more than 1 core" lol.. my win xp machine ATM- RIGHT NOW has 66 processes.. HMM and a quad core,.and stuff just rocks. Most users, even granny, use like more than 1 app at a given moment. Mozilla+Outlook anyone? OR the power users, who have word+outlook+excel+Mozilla+Anti Virus+music playing in background???
People should think first. Some games are multi threaded.. LOTS of apps are multi threaded. At this day, this year, most cpu's are multi core. WELL now there is a reason for software vendors to do multi threaded apps.. SAME goes for monitors.. There is no reason for a 28" monitor, but that wont stop people from buying.. AND in the Server world, MORE CORES=MORE POWER!!!.. IN a Virtual environment, This simply brings a smile to ma face...
there is a company had 64 core chips already ... Tile64
PLZ stop posting ignorant comments "games only use 1 or 2 cores" have u ever played ut3, Dawn of war 2, Crysis, call of duty 5, Warhammer because those games and more are heavily multi threaded as well as games coming out in the future.4 cores and above allow large performance gains as long the program is optimized to take advantage of it which is becoming more and more common, so 8 cores will just allow game developers to make even more amazing looking games.
Ignorant comments? Its well known champ that at present games perform at the very least equal if not gain a performance advantage using dual core over quad/octocore processors barring a very few exceptions. It governed my specific choice of a dual core for my current rig as the only advantage a quad offered was faster encoding where programs were correctly threaded to handle them. I would post a link but hey since you seem to know it all and you are on Toms why dont you have a look at the benchmarks posted for these processors specifically the gaming benchmarks. This will change given time but at present dual cores offer a performance advantage in games due to there higher clock speeds and faster encoding ability to me isnt worth the price premium of a quad personally. Perhaps before you bag other peoples comments you should do a bit of research yourself eh?
Glad you mentioned COD5 by the way, that game is an excellent example of dual cores running faster frames than quads, check some benchies.
Price to performance is the name of the game my e8400 oc'd to 3.8ghz runs all over quads in games at half the price of an equivelently clocked quad.
As far as octocore go's, why not? If the price is right I'll be on newegg tomorrow! You can never have enough power!!
"Well..
8 cores x 4 sockets = 32 cores"
With hyperthreading, it would be 64 cores in the OS.
And yes, these are server chips.
i believe research is still ongoing for parallel programming. until some breakthrough is made in that area it doesn't matter how many cores intel puts in one chip. then again, if parallel programming becomes mainstream, counting cores might not be the right benchmark.
As for the whole multi-core programming issue, I've worked with programs where its one line to get scalable multithreaded code. The mistake most deves made was when Duo's came out, instead of scaling to the number of avaliable cores, they wrote code to scale to a limited amount.
They'll get the hint in a year or two.
Will 8 cores be useful, sure it will be. But the question is, is the price right to buy it now, when most users don't gain big advantage from running more than 2 cores?
In a year or 2, it might all change, but I don't expect a big advantage for people to work on. 60 processes too small to even consider anything, you want to split it off to 60 cores? Why, so you have them all running at