Intel showcases 80-core CPU

[Zachstar]

Intel showcases 80-core CPU

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...10107&Itemid=1

First of all, this is not Larrabee; we’ve asked, and the engineer guarding this live demo with his life told us that this is a project that started even before Larrabee. This is a CPU of the future that features 80 small cores and this CPU can perform 1 Teraflop with these 80 cores with 78.35W and 3.13GHz clock speed.

This CPU is smart; if you don’t need that much computational power it will shut down most of its cores and downclock the CPU all the way to 780MHz, the peak Teraflops performance will drop to 0.01 and it will only need 6.45W to compute the 4tile, 4x4 matrix mult withcomm equation.

--------------

WOW!!!!

The most impressive feature is not it's raw power but its ability to use as little as needed to get by when you are not trying to get to the top of a fold@home team.

This is the future I guess. More and more cores added with 3D transistors will EASILY hold us over until qbits invade the home PC scene.

With Far Cry 2 we are just under the point of not being able to tell a game scene from a video scene. Who knows where THIS will take us.

My guess? Only LARGE game companies can keep up..

[FIREWALL]

Thx for the info Zachstar

[Task Force]

WOW, 80 cores.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Task Force

WOW, 80 cores.

So by 2015 or so we will likely see double or even quad that.

Mainly because they have seemingly broken the traditional "More cores equals EXTREME cost and research time" barrier.

Now some may comment that "Hey video cards can do tons of work today" what they are forgetting is that Video cards are HIGHLY specialized and are not easily able to run things outside of 3D and shader work. And also keep in mind that the rendering they do is not ray tracing.

100s or cores means that the average person can run a supercomputer that can compute almost any task at insane speed.

Does your game require that millions of AI characters live in a simulated environment and react realistically? No problem with NO shortcuts.

[Task Force]

Too bad intell is doing this, My computer uses AMD processors. Likely they will start putting more than 4 cores in CPUs way after Intell.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Task Force

Too bad intell is doing this, My computer uses AMD processors. Likely they will start putting more than 4 cores in CPUs way after Intell.

4 cores is nothing to laugh at right now. Games are only STARTING to take advantage of the tech and with game development prices skyrocketing that will not change very quickly.

Again it is obvious that we are heading for massive mergers for the game industry to keep up.

[Task Force]

AMD luanched there Quad core processor this year (just looked it up) and apparently it works alot better than Intells. It also appears to be power effecent. If it works in persional PCs, I think that im gona get one for christmas. Should be better than dual core.

[Wolfehunter]

Thanks for this info. Now I know what my next Rig will be in 6 years or so.

80 or 90 core system.. Ya baby. Can you imagine the AI's being able to use real thoughts againts live players. Man those destroyers aren't using the same scripted lines like they used to back in the SH3/4 era lol.:rotfl:

[Task Force]

If I was you I wouldnt go for the first generation, Let them refine there processor then jump on the wagon.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Task Force

If I was you I wouldnt go for the first generation, Let them refine there processor then jump on the wagon.

I know I was just having fun. I never get the first generations. Always the 3rd. A friend told me that years ago.

Thanks for your wisdom TF.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Task Force

If I was you I wouldnt go for the first generation, Let them refine there processor then jump on the wagon.

Agreed. Besides it is highly unlikely there will be ANY games that can take advantage of that raw power correctly for another 10 years atleast.

Right now it is simply too much cost to make games. That is why procedural generation is growing by leaps and bounds. To be able to say simulate a million humans halfway correctly in the game (Down to details as small as how the cut they got on Friday is healing) They need software that is able to make realistic models from looking at a base model then looking at photos of models then looking at other things then spit out a million individual models of the humans all rigged and ready to change as things happen. And it has to look the same as if a pro modeler had gone and made a million models.

BTW did I mention that because of graphics tech advancing by leaps and bounds that you have to have details down to the last pore on the skin?

[Task Force]

Myself, Im gona get a AMD quad core. From what I have read they are quite good.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Intel showcases 80-core CPU

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...10107&Itemid=1

--------------

WOW!!!!

The most impressive feature is not it's raw power but its ability to use as little as needed to get by when you are not trying to get to the top of a fold@home team.

This is the future I guess. More and more cores added with 3D transistors will EASILY hold us over until qbits invade the home PC scene.

With Far Cry 2 we are just under the point of not being able to tell a game scene from a video scene. Who knows where THIS will take us.

My guess? Only LARGE game companies can keep up..

I bet I'll be working on this stuff.:hmm:

[GlobalExplorer]

Not bad.

[Respenus]

This is very, very interesting. It just happens I read an article about personal "supercomputers" that run on Intel Xeon processors and uses Linux to enable clustering. Now the whole rig can cost from 25-60k $. Now imagine this with the new Intel chips. She prices would drop drastically.

Since I don't expect this lovely bit of technology to come knocking on our doorsteps for quite I while, I'd rather see CELL technology incorporated into PC chips. If it works so well for PS3, why can't it work in PCs?

Bah, I remember my first PC I bought in 1997 (we had a family PC long before that). It was a 166 Pentium II MMX, a couple of MBs on the GPU, couldn't have been more that 16 or 32 MB of RAM. Ah, those were the days. The games looked like crap compared to today's HD graphics, but still. They were very much playable. Ah, the good old days.