This quote is really intense. Well not really intense but kinda intense :DQuote:
Originally Posted by lawrywild
Printable View
This quote is really intense. Well not really intense but kinda intense :DQuote:
Originally Posted by lawrywild
"3GHz"
3x80=240GHz/240,000MHz
oced - 3.75 x 80 = 300GHz/300,000MHz
someone get me a diaper..
WOW, does that socket ever look nice!!Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
They're 80 simple cores - like many people have said in a rather similar way to how the cell is a 8 core cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
String a 1000 together for a Petaflop.
The thick wires are there because that mobo has no built in voltage regulators, and depending on the core voltage, there could be more then 100 amps running through those wires.
which can only mean that Power regulation for it is gonna be pricyQuote:
Originally Posted by Lead Head
That looks really awesome. But why can't they just make single core processors much better? Instead of just adding more and more cores lol :p:?
NO! It can only mean that it still is in development!Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Maybe not. Maybe they was working so hard on the CPU that completely forgot about the mobo :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Exactly! That huge box with the LED number readouts is a very precise power supply. It was obvious that this was thrown together very quickly and still in very early development.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
And how do you imagine "much better single core CPU" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brettbeck
Not at all, a well-made VRM is enough to provide power to this chip, but there's no VRM on the development PCB, so external power supplies have to provide lots of amps to the chip and it's not ideal because of ~100 A needed here (0.95 Vcore and ~100 W peak according to Intel). That's why there's a lot of capacitors near the chip to compensate losses induced by wires and difficulty to provide very stable voltage, regulation is a pain with such design implemented far from the chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
.Quote:
While it may take five to eight years to come out with a working 80-core chip, Vara says IT managers might start watching for what he calls "different flavors" of quad-core chips. "Maybe you'll have interim chips where they have more complex cores along with simpler cores, too."
;)
well that is exactly the point there are three walls that will forever limit performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackX
1) the IPC wall (which is limited by the hardware design team)
2) the Thread wall (which is limited by the software programmers)
3) the Clock speed wall (Which is limited by Process and Ram)
Going for mega IPC will only result in low clock speeds and unused features (best example CISC)
The thread wall will seriously eat up Transistors that could be used to improve IPC (PS3 anyone?)
The clock speed wall demonstrated that the clock latency only gets worse as clock speeds increase (see Prescott)
Holy !@#$ I don't care if those are the simplest of cores, the fact that they have 80 of them on a single package and functioning at 3GHz is a feat in itself. In regards to the power management, have you looked at how bare the motherboard is? Just looks like me like they threw something together for the press release, current quad-cores can easily suck up to 100 amps of power but it's all done through onboard regulation and then distributed through dozens of traces/pins. Give Intel time and you'll see a better developed socket with onboard power regulation. This early in the game you can't expect miracles ;)
Probably every year we will see new CPU with double number of cores.. 4..8..16..32..
2,048... 4,096... 8,192... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackX
:eek: no comment
I dont like the doubling of cores.
If you overclocked a northwood you could keep up with a later prescott, even the higher clocked ones. But now you can overclock your conroe but you cant keep up with the kentsfields.
From now on you cant keep up with the newer CPU's because of the doubling of cores.
Q - how will the chip function?
80 threads?
10/thread x 8?
5/thread x 16?
cpu/gpu hybrid?
even years from now the way programmers are treating multithreaded cpus.. only windows + 2 other apps will take advantage of 80-threads..
double the stock clock speed :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
I'm still busy with that :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
It is 80 cores, but these are REALLY REALLY simple cores. The 80 of them combined have the same number of transistors as a single core Pentium 4. In fact, the cores are pretty much just simple stand ins to test the interconnect fabric until they can develop an X86 version. Having said that, they do each have 2 32-bit pipelined multipliers with accumulate, so they would make an insane DSP type chip (IE: graphics card) if they were beefed up a little more.
EDIT: and about the SRAM layer on top, look at the wafer, for every 80 core chip there is also another die that looks like it would be the SRAM cache which would be pasted on top of the 80 cores.
Isnt that old news? I think I read about that stuff a month ago.
As has been said, its a test to see if a 80 core cpu would work at all, because there are all kind of things that can go wrong.
From what I recall its even possible to disable parts of specific cores to prevent them from overheating and let other cores take the role of the disabled ones.