• 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

silversurfer said:
Most games dont now, this is in 5 years time. If they are to keep up with the market then they must at least quadruple their most powerfull chip's power.

80 cores of various powers sounds about right to me, something like real time ray tracing could use that and maybe that'd make an awesome game :D
Click to expand...
Just have to wait 40 years for consoles to catch up. :P
 
My ancient words of wisdom :p Consoles have at times had the greater amount of cores but I think PC with multiple uses is where its best suited.

I have 16 thread now and it just an old server chip I got. IPC didnt rise but 16 thread is nice potential power to have and some software uses it.
For a bit more I could have 24 threads if I wanted, wasnt really going to be used and this chip uses less power so Im fine with this amount of cores even if we are behind the times possibly. You can buy 48 thread chips if you want, really its a server or specialist type sale.

Higher IPC is still what would make more difference for a lot of tasks. I'll take the cores but the multi threading software development has only really advanced for certain 'massed work' tasks


hedgey said:
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..
Click to expand...

Tech is supposed to double every two years. 2 core not that needed in 2006 supposedly, call that the base line

That'd make 4 in 2008
16 in 2010
32 in 2012
64 in 2014
128 in 2016

Be generous and equate threads to the old dualcore. Nobody really needs that now, you were right.
 
Last edited:
Found this and wow Intel had a completely different roadmap in mind: http://www.anandtech.com/show/680/7

Realistically speaking, we should be able to see NetBurst based processors reach somewhere between 8 – 10GHz in the next five years before the architecture is replaced yet again. Reaching 2GHz isn’t much of a milestone, however reaching 8 – 10GHz begins to make things much more exciting than they are today. Obviously this 8 – 10GHz clock range would be based on Intel’s 0.07-micron process that is forecasted to debut in 2005. These processors will run at less than 1 volt, 0.85v being the current estimate.
Click to expand...

And lol at these comments when Intel predicted 10GHz by 2011: http://www.geek.com/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-564808/
 
Orcvader said:
And lol at these comments when Intel predicted 10GHz by 2011: http://www.geek.com/chips/intel-predicts-10ghz-chips-by-2011-564808/
Click to expand...
In fairness before Netburst tripped up over it's own feet that scaling was perfectly understandable, nobody envisioned Intel would spent most of the '00s chocking on AMD's ballsack.

Hell we started the 90's with 33MHz CPUs (486DX) and ended them with 800MHz (Pentium III), considering we hit 1Ghz in 2000 then 2GHz in 2001 it seemed at the time like 10GHz in 2011 was a conservative estimate :P
 
I had one of the early 486 chips. It developed out to over 100mhz and could be faster then the pentium lower chips, even back then IPC was disappointing people. It wasnt just AMD but also I had a Cyrix x86 clone again beating pentium no problem.
I remember reading cache and general memory supply was a problem for cpu pipelines. I wish we'd all gone with RISC and parallel processing a long time ago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom