Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    Intel: 1000-core processor possible
    Intel: 1000-core processor possible
    Intel: 1000-core processor possible | Processors | Macworld

    1000 cores? Geee. Then each app and each process could have it's own dedicated core. I think would be pretty sweet.

  2. #2

    iggibar's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    4,079
    Specs:
    4.1 Mac Pro. 15" MBP. 13" MBP. 17" PB. PM G5. iPhone 6S+ 64gb Gold. Apple Watch 42mm.
    Not impressed a bit. I would rather take a 10 fast processors than 1000 lame speed processors. Whatever happened to developing fast, single processors anyways? The Mac Pro is a great example of speed vs. multi core advantages.
    “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius

  3. #3


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    I think even 10 fast processors is not the solution. The information from the processors can only currently travel so fast to the screen and the hard drive and other places. So a kind of bottle neck in a way.

    And I think of it this way. Sure this is a very simplified way of explaining things but you'll all get the point.

    Say you have one chip with one core that can do or think about 10 processes a second. If that chip has 100 processes to think of or do. That means each of the 100 different processes gets a processes on the chip to work 1/100 or one every 10 seconds.

    But say you take those 100 processes and spread them over a chip with 50 cores but each core can only do say 2 processes a second. Here you can spread out the load so each core gets 2 processes to think about. And that gives you each core doing 1 process a second.

    Assuming all the processes are running at the same time, and time taken to communicate between the cores is factored out, though the single core chip is 5x faster then each of the individual cores on the 50 core core chip, the 50 core chip gets work done faster.

    I know there is probably a lot of inaccuracies with my little story there. But my main point is there. Lots of "lame as you call them" cores might just be better then one beefy fast one. We just don't know at that silly number of cores intel is proposing. For me it's a wait and see game.

    And secondly this 1000 number is at the moment just a theoretical limit. We might never see in the real world a 1000 core chip. But knowing your maximum theoretical limits is good. So you can use the data to work out a good balance between core speed and core number. And other things too. So yeah I won't ever be expecting a 1000 core chip but this info will surely make better chips in the future.

  4. #4


    Member Since
    Apr 09, 2009
    Location
    Ithaca NY
    Posts
    2,073
    Specs:
    13 inch alMacBook 2GHz C2D 4G DDR3, 1.25GHz G4 eMac
    Come on, 8th, you know you want your 1000 core GPU powering a holodeck! Just not an intel gpu!

  5. #5


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkestRitual View Post
    Come on, 8th, you know you want your 1000 core GPU powering a holodeck! Just not an intel gpu!
    I like people to be real and not just a hologram. Even though on the holodeck they'd feel and seem real. And I was thinking more like a robot butler. One programmed to do gardening too. I hate gardening.

    Or make an electronic babelfish so I can understand every language on the Earth.

  6. #6


    Member Since
    Apr 09, 2009
    Location
    Ithaca NY
    Posts
    2,073
    Specs:
    13 inch alMacBook 2GHz C2D 4G DDR3, 1.25GHz G4 eMac
    Oh man a babelfish would be sweet. idrinor, I'm not sure what you're smoking, but the Mac Pro is a great example of high clock speed and high core count application. The super multicore chips are designed for low power consumption server functions, but would have applications across the board and help develop future higher power processors. When you're trying to compare a design that is aimed at the low power server market to a high power production market, that's just not meant to be.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-12-2012, 05:38 AM
  2. Upgrading processor on imac g5 intel core 2 duo
    By Chris2007 in forum Apple Desktops
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 08:00 PM
  3. I need help upgrading from PowerPc G5 to Intel core 2 duo processor.
    By matt1992 in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-19-2009, 06:06 PM
  4. Intel Core Duo processor
    By hojkoff_101 in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-24-2006, 03:32 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-27-2006, 03:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •