New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus • Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts • Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Schweb's Lounge Forum for general conversation, chit chat, or most topics that don't fit in another forum.

Intel: 1000-core processor possible


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
the8thark

 
Member Since: Jan 27, 2007
Location: *Brisvegas*
Posts: 5,658
the8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to all
Mac Specs: 17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3

the8thark is offline
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.
QUOTE Thanks
iggibar

 
iggibar's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 20, 2009
Location: C-Town
Posts: 4,067
iggibar is a splendid one to beholdiggibar is a splendid one to beholdiggibar is a splendid one to beholdiggibar is a splendid one to beholdiggibar is a splendid one to beholdiggibar is a splendid one to beholdiggibar is a splendid one to beholdiggibar is a splendid one to behold
Mac Specs: Mac Pro 4.1 15" MBP. 13" MBP. 17" PB. Power Mac G5. Galaxy Note 4 160gb*

iggibar is offline
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
QUOTE Thanks
the8thark

 
Member Since: Jan 27, 2007
Location: *Brisvegas*
Posts: 5,658
the8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to all
Mac Specs: 17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3

the8thark is offline
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.
QUOTE Thanks
DarkestRitual

 
Member Since: Apr 09, 2009
Location: Ithaca NY
Posts: 2,073
DarkestRitual is just really niceDarkestRitual is just really niceDarkestRitual is just really niceDarkestRitual is just really nice
Mac Specs: 13 inch alMacBook 2GHz C2D 4G DDR3, 1.25GHz G4 eMac

DarkestRitual is offline
Come on, 8th, you know you want your 1000 core GPU powering a holodeck! Just not an intel gpu!
QUOTE Thanks
the8thark

 
Member Since: Jan 27, 2007
Location: *Brisvegas*
Posts: 5,658
the8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to allthe8thark is a name known to all
Mac Specs: 17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3

the8thark is offline
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.
QUOTE Thanks
DarkestRitual

 
Member Since: Apr 09, 2009
Location: Ithaca NY
Posts: 2,073
DarkestRitual is just really niceDarkestRitual is just really niceDarkestRitual is just really niceDarkestRitual is just really nice
Mac Specs: 13 inch alMacBook 2GHz C2D 4G DDR3, 1.25GHz G4 eMac

DarkestRitual is offline
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.
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« Dead hard drive is boring >.> | What time do you eat Thanksgiving dinner? »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
All mac applications quit unexpectedly jollyrgr OS X - Operating System 8 01-21-2010 08:05 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?