I still really don't like that concept. Both AMD and Intel have over 100 processors available each at any given time. Fusion/Nehalm could see that number grow 10 fold. I don't like it.

I think we should stop at Quad-Core for now, and just jack up the speeds of the Bus & CPU speed. Do this for now, just until the market catches up or something, because this industry is going nuts Big Time.

And listen to this, Intel is also bringing back a form of Hyper-Threading on their Nehalem based processors dubbed: Symmetric Multi Processing. So, all 8 cores will be able to handle a total of two threads per core, making it 16 threads in total, per clock cycle of course. Interesting none the less. Secondly, Intel is feeling the need to dabble in a sort of Fusion project, incorporating the GPU on only some of their lower-end processors. But Nehalam will also be the processor to bring about CSI (if that's what they'll still call it at the time) and an integrated memory controller. Nothing was said much about the clockspeed and bus speeds either. Which leads me to my next point? When the f**k am I supposed to actually build a system now?

Now. No use waiting. It's old news before it hits the shelf.

I'd really like to see the return of an IA-64 like processor that's designed to handle two 32-bit operations at the same time or combine the two for a single 64-bit operation. The only flaw with IA-64 is it's lack of x86 compatible instructions. They need to put a Core and IA-64 processor in a can, shake it up, and see what comes out.

Lol, that would be interesting. But I thought that an IA-64 capable processor was able to handle 32-bit and 64-bit operations at the same time, regardless? Guess I was wrong.

It's got more than one pair. One pair could be working with one or two 32-bit operations while the second pair is working on a single 64-bit operation. It can run two threads at once handling upwards of 6 IPC (double Core microarchitecture) assuming the software was compiled in a way to take full advantage of it.

Ultimately, the FSB will stop the core count from getting too high. Every core is memory hungry and they all have to fight over access. There will be a point when you simply have to have multiple sockets just to satisfy it's hunger. That's why Intel keeps going back to the CSI concept for Xeons.

So wait? CSI is already out or something? Because Intel said that eventually they will have to get rid of their FSB design, wasn't sure if they already did it for the server environment.

No CSI is not out, but its been in design development for a wile now. Its a good think Intel is reviving the Hyper Threading, it should compete well with AMD's multi-thread design.

They're both multi-threaded designs/processors. Even your X2 is mult-threaded. It's just that, Intel's design is more mult-threaded than AMD's.

Now all we need is multi-threaded applications by 2008.

Well, multi-threaded programs have been available for years. But the fact of the matter is, they need to make every program multi-threaded if they expect the rest of the world to take advantage of dual, quad and octal core processors.

S_U_P_E_R X_P said:

The problem is that we are currently in the "core war" trend. Last time, it was clock speed. So, to appeal to the less educated (and therefore bigger market), they have to go with what the consumer wants: more cores to do more things at once (aka: college students burning a CD, watching a movie, and downloading some programs).

It doesn't matter if your processor is faster and can do more things better if the consumer isn't educated enough to know any better. Dell thrives off the ignorant. Unfortunately, so does a company we call "Apple".

LOL

S_U_P_E_R X_P said:
Hyper Threading allows the processor to accept more threads at a time which in turn allows unused processing units to be utilized. It increases IPCs by injecting additional work to the physical cores.

Not to dog anyone, but I've seen very little in actual data in this thread.
Including my input.
Based upon what I have seen, the IRAQ WAR seems to be reletively straight foward.....

Gerritt

as for stopping at 4 cores,, see you there.. i've got eight cores crunching numbers .. and it helps big time.. no more waiting on clusters to become free.

as for putting more cores on a die,, i say go for it.. because in the end a few of them are going to be GPU's .. sure they may not be good for hardcore gaming.. but i don't care.. i'll still be crunching numbers. and NOTHING crunches numbers better then gpus. i welcome the developments and striving goals intel and amd have set for themselves in increasing their capacity to include more cores in chip.

.. on the otherside of the arguement.. look how lazy programmers are getting these days with all this expendable memory, clock speeds, and drive space available to them... i can't believe they haven't caught on to using all the extra cores in bloatware too... it really is dissapointing.... i guess using two cores requires too much skill. *sigh*

Well I am all for more cores & more speed, but companies can't seem to keep pace with it. I also think we need much faster Hard Drives. Flash looks like it is going to win in the future.

S_U_P_E_R X_P said:

I'd imagine a lot longer than that maybe 5 years. When you start having too many cores there be problems. Intel said the sweet spot is 16 cores after that then its not much benefit.

screw 8 cores, im waiting on that 80 core processor from intel

FingerMeElmo87 said:

HAHA Me too waiting!!!!

Actually, if we just buy a C2D, we can easily do what ever we want,,,,Quad processor's are goona used after a year and so,,,,,,and Octa core..........2-3 years (Seriously)