• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel pledges 80 cores in five years

If you got hold of one (assuming it'd fit in existing mobos and Intel didn't launch a multi million dollar lawsuit against you to recover their property) how much you reckon it'd go for on fleabay?

I'm seeing a lot of zeroes.
 
Just realise people that those 80 cores will be very simplistic and won't be anywhere near as powerful an individual core of today. But where they lose out in out-right performance they make up for in the number of cores ;) Intel is making a bet that in 5 years the majority of software will be highly multi-threaded.
 
13mm by 22mm thats a bit small isnt it???

and from what i gather each core will run at 3.16 ghz imagine the heat.

Or am I completly wrong with this???
 
NathanE said:
Intel is making a bet that in 5 years the majority of software will be highly multi-threaded.
Click to expand...

Then why are they developing Kentsfield? Intel are releasing that and everybody knows a lot of programs won't be multithreaded by then.

Sorry for my ignorance btw.
 
That 80 core beastie is very interesting. It could be used for any number of things. But it's not x86 so it will be specialist. High end rendering... specialist graphics technology. it could do all of that. But, it wont be the sort of thing you or I use on our desktops ;)
 
Lot of Intel hogwash again - yes its possible that huge amounts of cores will be viable but really even in highend rendering farms in Hollywood etc, surely there is a finite amount of "value" you want in one "unit" - after all these rendering farms as far as I understand it are all relatively basic units but highly pallalelized using major amounts of seperate boxes.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it just seems ridiculous to have that amount of cores on one cpu (incidentally surely 80 couldnt be right - surely it would have to go 2>4>8>16>32>64>128? unless you do a funny like kentsfield [not "true" quad but more 2*2] and have one 64 core matched with a 16 core and a 4 core all one one cpu???)
 
ive had dualcore for a year and i only have 3 apps that are multithreaded..4 cores is a joke, and itll break most games/apps on XP. developers are not early adopters..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom