Intel demonstrated a 80-core, Teraflop CPU!!!

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by dinos22, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. dinos22

    dinos22 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,329
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    http://news.com.com/2300-1006_3-6158220-4.html?tag=ne.gall.pg
    http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle....R1TAX2QSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=196901229
     
  2. XTRO

    XTRO Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    545
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Check out the Billet hardware on the cpu socket !!!!
    Awesome things to come :)
     
  3. Whisper

    Whisper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,297
    Location:
    Sydney
    Just to put 80 Teraflops into context, just how many teraflops does a Intel E6600 at default settings run at?
     
  4. Ellroy80

    Ellroy80 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,064
    Location:
    Perth, WA, 6152
    This is only 1 teraflop, not 80. To put it in perspective, the G80 puts out somewhere between 350 and 500 Gflops.

    I would imagine that something like this would be suited to Intel's foray into the high-end GPU market.
     
  5. eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,902
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    dam look at the power requirements :D
     
  6. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,849
    Location:
    Canberra
    I don't understand the power requirements. If it's only using 100w (as mentioned in the article), why are there eight plugs leading to it, each with eight wires, a forest of capacitors around the CPU, and a watercooling system? Surely they could have powered that much with a standard ATX plug and cooled it with the stock HSF from a Pentium-D?
     
  7. Ze.

    Ze. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    7,871
    Location:
    Newcastle, NSW
    Measuring flops is meaningless unless you are comparing them against the same application. Then the peak flops don't count but rather the achieved flops count.

    I highly doubt it'd be suitable for intel's foray into the graphics market since it lacks memory bandwidth due to nature of how its laid out in a mesh.

    It's all a load of marketing speak about a research project without any real details for the ones amongst us that know a little about computer architecture and computer science.
     
  8. Goose1981

    Goose1981 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,356
    Location:
    Perth
    Must be a typo..

    Maybe 100watts per core? :D
     
  9. Avariel

    Avariel Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,196
    Location:
    Waterford West 4133
    Imagine running F@H on that thing, easy 50-60k ppd :p

    under linux and SMP of course :p
     
  10. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,849
    Location:
    Canberra
    Wait until they get it running on G80 - it's essentially a 128-core processor! Of course, it's still optimised for graphics, but apparently it's now capable of acting as a general-purpose processor.

    Maybe. It had better not be 100w/core - I don't think that the water cooling system on there could handle 8kw of heat output (and customers wouldn't be happy with it either).
     
  11. Reaper

    Reaper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,909
    Location:
    Brisbane, Qld, Australia
    They seem to be all over the place there.

    That should be 270 Gflops @11W

    Then the chart goes to show 300Gflops @11W

    But either way, damn, you could passive cool that shit.

    Anyway, going by that chart, it is a diminising return indeed when you go past that 1Tflop mark. Almost double the power for only ~25% increase in performance.

    BTW, that is total power for all cores. Sort of does put into perspective on why the 8800gtx video card uses so much juice.

    Your comment is perplexing indeed. I would think of all people you'd know this is a prototype setup and not a finished consumer level end product.
     
  12. IKT

    IKT Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    4,278
    Are those IDE cables?

    If current applications need optimising for dual core, will 80 cores be more difficult or even worth while?

    http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0109.1737.15034.htm?Page=3



    Looking at the 3rd picture down a few of the main cables appear to be going up to whatever that thing above the mainboard and below the monitor.

    From Intel's part of their website:

    http://www.intel.com/research/platform/terascale/teraflops.htm?cid=cim:021207_dailytech

    ftp://download.intel.com/research/platform/images/teraflops/teraflop_sriram.jpg

    That machine is the first thing you see in the top left of that image.

    Interesting Stats:

    Frequency | Voltage | Power | Aggregate Bandwidth | Performance
    3.16 GHz | 0.95 V | 62W |1.62 Terabits/s | 1.01 Teraflops
    5.1 GHz | 1.2 V | 175W | 2.61 Terabits/s | 1.63 Teraflops
    5.7 GHz | 1.35 V |265W |2.92 Terabits/s | 1.81 Teraflops
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2007
  13. wild

    wild Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,551
    Location:
    Newcastle
    If you look at the photo of the demo setup, it appears to have an aircooler on it using heatpipes. The article says they used watercooling to get higher speeds.

    Also, note that the caps are pretty small. :)
     
  14. N1zmo

    N1zmo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    608
    Location:
    Perth, 6065

    thats a bit crap... imagine, 1 core 350-500 gflops vs 80 core 1 tflop... :thumbdn:
     
  15. thormania

    thormania Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Messages:
    839
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Um it's a research chip, if you read it's still 5 years of becoming viable at all. I think it's impressive to say the least. With five years of research this could be pretty amazing/useful and people like us could be using these in our pc's. Sounds awesome to me.
     
  16. stevo4

    stevo4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    10,629
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Before ppl start thinking more cores is better they may wish to read the following -

    http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2006/EECS-2006-183.pdf

    Until coders get up to speed with coding for such, multi core systems arent going to offer alot. At least in the desktop arena where most apps and games arent coded for multicore systems, and many of those that do, do so in a limited way.
     
  17. N1zmo

    N1zmo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    608
    Location:
    Perth, 6065
    they better get back to work then! :D not enought yet
     
  18. Ellroy80

    Ellroy80 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,064
    Location:
    Perth, WA, 6152
    Um, the G80 is essentially a 128 core processor. I'd imagine the cores on the G80 are smaller than this that Intel has demo'd, but you get the idea.
     
  19. Ellroy80

    Ellroy80 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,064
    Location:
    Perth, WA, 6152
    What if they used something like die stacking for the memory, as outlined in this article:

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2925
     
  20. Avariel

    Avariel Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,196
    Location:
    Waterford West 4133
    Still good for folding IMO :p
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: