Intel aims for 32 cores by 2010

[r_moore04]

haha 32 cores, i dont see that happening really

have a look:

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/07/10/intel_32_core_processor/

 

[DannyBoy1]

lol 32 Cores omg that would be a awesome PC if it could happen though, probably will but 2010 is abit to near i would atleast say 2016

 

[♂ÇRÅßßÿ®]

What is the point? I mean, unless the next windows after vista requires like 10 gigs of ram, a 100ghz cpu....there is not point to that many cores.

 

[Half Evil]

Processing power and what you can do with it. Seriously, like banks, and big corperations have rooms FULL of servers. Because severs are typically dual core Xeon, it takes 16 of them to get 32 cores, although with a 32 core processor, that eleimates so much room, while maintiaing the same processing speed.

Theoreticly. It wont technicly work that way, but you know what I mean.

 

[r_moore04]

i think they need 2 look for the speed now they have dual core cpus, u dont need more then 2 cores yet

 

[joe pic]

no, i believe it! i mean look, 100MHz used to be GREAT to have way back then. we never thought we would reach the GHz! but now we're at 4GHz, and climbing.

 

[alvino]

The BBUL process is pretty interesting. Theoretically it can increase performance and decrease latency and bottlenecks.

My only concern is Intel actually delivering what they say they will. Remember two years ago? They announced that there could possibly be a Pentium 5 clocked at up to 5Ghz stock. So much for that...they scrapped the project because they realized that the amount of instructions per clock cycle is more important than stratospheric clock speeds.

They've actually taken that seriously...look at the Core Microarchtecture. It's so much different than the Prescott and Northwood cores that one year ago, no one could've imagined that Intel would be doing this. They've also taken Moore's Law seriously too. Every two years Intel will release new processor technologies. So in 2005 it was 65nm, in 2007 it'll be 45nm and in 2009 it'll be 32nm.

 

[The Power]

no, i believe it! i mean look, 100MHz used to be GREAT to have way back then. we never thought we would reach the GHz! but now we're at 4GHz, and climbing.

That goes the same thing for anything about computers or anything about technology in general. But the thing is, computers have been out since the 80s (personal computers). So that is around 20 years. In those 20 years, we have reached only to dual core processors with some exceptions with a quad core cpu but that is not common at all. So can we really go from 2-32 by 2010

 

[mammikoura]

That goes the same thing for anything about computers or anything about technology in general. But the thing is, computers have been out since the 80s (personal computers). So that is around 20 years. In those 20 years, we have reached only to dual core processors with some exceptions with a quad core cpu but that is not common at all. So can we really go from 2-32 by 2010

And we have gone from like a few mbs of ram to 4096mb. (well not that many people use this much, but a lot of mobos support it)
Same with cpu clock speeds. HUGE increase during that time, and also modern computers do a lot more per clock cycle than the cpus did 20 years ago.

Technology has come a long way, like 10 years ago many people probably thought that 128mb of ram was too much and no one would ever need it. But now if someone says he has 128mb of ram everyone is just going to laugh at him.

 

[kchi55]

well this tech is saved for the servers.. i doubt we'll be seeing it in our pcs. just look at the current prices of the SUN chips. up to under 30,000? i dunno.. i won't be willing to fork out that much cash for just once piece of hardware. this kinda tech won't be ready for us for a lonnggg time.