News Intel releases 48-core processor

i think the most important thing is whether it cnan tell the difference between 0 and 1.

Watch this 1110011 1110000 1100001 1100011 1100101!

 

Binary fail!

Read this (ASCII): 01000010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101111 01100100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01100100 01101001 01110110 01101001 01110011 01101001 01100010 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100010 01111001 00100000 00111000

I think x86 compatibility would be important to most users. I don't think the market is particularly large for a processor that requires a custom OS.

 

Am I the only one who is impressed by the TDP of this thing? I'm sure I've owned single-core processors with higher TDP's than that.

As for multi core systems, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I really hope it's a long time before anything more than 4 cores becomes mainstream.
I think we are already starting to have problems with lazy developers not optimizing applications because dual core 2gb ram systems are becoming the norm. I dread to think what would happen if 20 cores and 20 gigs of ram became the norm. We'd probably end up with notepad apps taking up 100% of a 2ghz core and 6 gigs of ram. Imagine iTunes...

 

I'd have to say not very well since crysis only uses 2 cores it should perform miserably compared to a i7/i5

 

Some times it IS necessary for hardware to pull software up to its capabilities. If we followed the idea that a couple cores is all we'll ever need we would still be using, and be happy with TRS-80s. Current programing really must catch up with the hardware. How many programs scale well? Not enough.

 

I'm pretty sure this will be fully x64 compatible, x86 will fade out from now on.

 

True, but ample processing power should not be an excuse for sloppy programming. It is, always has been, and always should be, imperative that executable code is optimized to run as economically as possible (within reason).

I didn't buy a dual core processor and 2 gig of ram so iTunes could stretch itself to 50%+ cpu cycles and hundreds of megs of ram. Put another way, if my computer is capable of running even something as old as FarCry (original) at 1280x1024 at full quality, cover flow in iTunes should not stutter.

(Sorry to pick on iTunes, I know it's not the only one (zune software anyone?))

 

I wasn't implying that programmers to be reckless but that they should catch up with where the hardware is going. If 4 cores are common place, and 6, 8, 12, etc... are going to be common place very soon; programmers must catch up with that. They also must use it as efficiently as possible too. I think that efficiency is part of a program's ability to scale and respond to the users load on the system. But with all of the hardware capacity available it's negligent to the consumer, commercial or private, to not take advantage of their purchase of new technology. I have experienced this with some commercial computer controlled equipment.

NO I AM NOT PICKING ON PROGRAMMERS. (This is a generalization) I hold the MANAGEMENT who sets the WORK priorities for the programmers as responsible. It seems to me that the programming paradigm is stuck on dated ideals, i.e. it works in XP why update it? I do recognize the complexities and difficulties involved with programming and am not marginalizing that, however it can't be used as an excuse to live with merely acceptable performance because it still works. Maybe Microsoft needs to drop more of its legacy support in the name of efficiency.

 

The question is:

Can it run Ubisoft's servers 24/7?

 

I lolled so much to that one.

 

Software can no longer be developed for a single platform architecture. Software needs to be developed in such away that allows for universal access to that software on multiple platforms with multiple archtecture configerations. Software needs to be both adaptable and interchangable, for example you can play final fantasy 7 playstation, but you can not play it in a laptop or desktop computer, you can run windows 95 software on windows 95 but you can not run it on windows 7. If software was made to be both adaptable and interchangable the problems of compatability would not even exist. you could run your playstation 3 games on your windows 98 computer, you could watch your dvds from your cd drive and so on and so forth. Software emulation is much easier to do when it is programed in to nanoscale EEPROM's and while many would still call that Hardware emulation its still Software emulation cause it still requiers coding. One chip, with one EEPROM for every OS, Architecture, CPU type and clock speed, and a few EEPROM's interconected with some logic circuitry and coded with data for adaptibility, and interchangability and you will have a chip that will potentialy defeat the problems of compatibility.

 

But at what cost?

One of the main reasons we have so many different platforms is the manufacturers' desire to exercise full control over their platform, including deciding what software can be released on the platform, by whom, and what royalties they will be charged. Developer kits for some platforms (nintentdo/playstation for example) can cost thousands of pounds, and I don't see those manufacturers giving up that money cow willingly.

Another consideration is the cost of actually developing and adding such hardware and whether people would actually care enough to pay for it. Most things that I could do on Windows 95, I can do better in Windows 7, and for the few things that I can't I could use an emulator, if I was really desperate. The point is that saying to a customer "This is £50 more expensive because it can run Windows 95 software" is likely to get you laughed at.

Finally, it is important to consider the different hardware platforms and their relationship the the software running on them. Having the ability to run iOS software on my desktop, would be of very limited use, as the software is specifically tailored for the iOS devices. The same goes for running Playstation software on iOS, or Windows NT on android.

In short, while this sort of thing sounds good in theory, and it would be nice to have one piece of software that runs on everything, in practice we find that it rarely works very well.