• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

QUAD CORE MY .....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nifty. I'll be interested to see what Sun has in 5 years since they already have 8 core processors.
 
Yeah, but I'm not upgrading my Pentium II until they get 160 cores. That will be future-proof :p :rolleyes:
 
Uhm, unless the die's are built on a 5nm process, the CPU's will be the size of X1900's.
 
Lol, I remember reading way-back-when when Intel claimed that their P4 technology would take them to 10ghz. I can see plenty of limitations for having 80 cores on a single die. Size, size, size, heat, size, cost, power consumption, size, heat, and simply manufacturing 80 cores on a single die and having every single one of them work. Not to mention, there's CPU communication. How are those 80 CPU's going to talk to each other? 1gb of onboard RAM? That won't be small. Front side bus? Talk about putting a 7950GX2 on a PCI (not PCIx!) bus. That'd be worse than my brother clogging the toilet every time he takes a shit.

Intel has made bold claims before and wasn't able to live up to them. It's a PR move. Frankly, I just don't see 80 cores being feasible in 5 years time. I remember reading articles on putting two cores on a single die back in 1998 issues of PC-Gamer magazine, and look how long it took both AMD and Intel to push out that kind of technology. Especially given that the CPU market isn't driven by engineering philanthropy (both AMD and Intel are guilty of this), you're not going to see Intel deliver 80 cores to the consumer on a single die until some competitor gives them a compelling reason to do so.

Why? Because Intel is gonna milk your ass for every dollar it can while it introduces technology over a slow period of time. Why introduce 3.6ghz Conroes when you can make money off of the 2.13ghz Conroes you're selling right now? Why introduce 80 core CPUs when you can milk consumers on quad core CPUs you're selling right now? (Or are going to here in a few months).

PR hot air I say.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Cool now I can open AIM fastar
Click to expand...
when that chip comes out, you will need it for AIM, 79 cores to load and run the ads and one for the conversations.
 
Well looks like i might see speaking computer just like in StarTrek before i die. I am 25 :D
 
People need to realize that this is ONLY marketed towards supercomputer type applications. This WILL NOT be in your little mid tower box at home... nor would it be able to run widows even. LOL I don't know why people are getting so bent out of shape over this. The .00000001% that this CPU may target IS NOT you nor I.

Now.. can they do it? Maybe, maybe not... but they are trying. It's pretty amazing no matter how you slice it. They could spend the next 4 years pumping billions into this and turn around and scrap the entire project. Or they could end up with something that is amazing. That's what makes Intel different from the other guy... that level of risk taking. They are willing to stick it out there.... knowing full well that it could get cut off. I guess they could just ride Conroe out for the next 4 years like that other company did. But then again... if Intel acted like this we would still be on IDE hard drives and SDRAM. LOL :D
 
If I could afford it, I would buy it. Game on 4 cores, fold on 76. :D

Whats that about, 60,000 PPD? :D
 
Ranari said:
That'd be worse than my brother clogging the toilet every time he takes a shit.
Click to expand...

One of the few things I've actually laughed my ass off at on a messageboard
 
robberbaron said:
The drives and ram we still use are called IDE and SDRAM.
Click to expand...


Well.... I haven't used a IDE drive in years and the ram we use now is either DDR SDRAM or DDR2 SDRAM. Provided you have upgraded your system within the past few years. If you haven't then you may be using this older, dead technology.
 
Buckus said:
Yeah, but I'm not upgrading my Pentium II until they get 160 cores. That will be future-proof :p :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


this guy is right, but 80 or 160 cores is for pussies. i'll wait 10 years and get the 1000 core cpu. by then, maybe nvidia will have a chipset that can overclock intel.
 
Fool, 80 cores will read each other with intels laser processors.

You'll need 5000 watt power supplies......
 
This quote caught my eye for the more immediate future.

"As expected, Intel announced plans to have quad-core processors ready for its customers in November. An extremely fast Core 2 Extreme processor with four cores will be released then, and the newly named Core 2 Quad processor for mainstream desktops will follow in the first quarter of next year, Otellini said."

"Otellini said, disclosing that the quad-core desktop processor will deliver 70 percent faster integer performance than the Core 2 Duo" :eek:

Damn things are moving along like they did back in the 1998-2002 era again.
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
The difference is this has no physically unbreakable boundaries, read the darn thing...Can you at least think before posting?
Click to expand...

yeah, should be MUCH easier than getting the pIV to 10ghz..
:)
 
with an 80 core system, Solitare will finally be able to run on a system that can handle it
:p
 
"Lets play Global Thermonuclear War."
"Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of chess?"
 
robberbaron said:
The drives and ram we still use are called IDE and SDRAM.
Click to expand...

SDRAM yes. IDE I don't think so. YOu might mean ATA, since it's now Serial ATA.
 
its nice to see all the inovations with CPUs, but why cant they put the same inovation into the hard drives. No matter how fast these multi-core systems will be, they are still limited to the speed of the hard drive
 
80 cores?

dumb.

Give me a proggy that'll make use of 80 cores let alone 4 or even the rare proggies for 2 cores. Fuckers--I don't give a shit about that.

Now where's my dog :D
 
definately interesting.... timelines for things seem to be really soon.... 775 and 478 have been around for a while and lasted a while and core duos are already out with core2duo and now core2quads next year... crap things are moving fast right now..

it is interesting how for 3-5 years DDR1 was king and P4 775 and 478 w HT and the Athlon XPs and 64s were all similar and lasted a while and now CPUs are changing faster than I change my underware.... :)
 
it's (still to me) funny to think our screaming fast dual cores of today are going to be amazingly "meh" in like two years... I honestly don't know what I would do with more power than I have now... get a larger monitor for gaming I reckon. ;)

EDIT: but of course we'll all need quad cores and 4 gigs of memory (minimum) to run Outlook with spam filters enabled in two years..
 
CpuMan said:
This quote caught my eye for the more immediate future.

"Otellini said, disclosing that the quad-core desktop processor will deliver 70 percent faster integer performance than the Core 2 Duo" :eek:
Click to expand...

I get the feeling this is only going to be applicable for massively multithreaded programs.
 
mwarps said:
I get the feeling this is only going to be applicable for massively multithreaded programs.
Click to expand...
even then.. a 70% boost isn't awesome for a 100% boost in theoretical ability

anyhow, for those who are saying that they won't be able to make an 80 core chip without it being too big, hot, whatever. the solution is REALLY simple. processors today are really bloated. i mean REALLY bloated.. ;)
drop it down to the bare essentials, and 80 cores will easily fit within a normal sized die at 32nm, which is the process size we will most likely be at in 5 years ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top