News Intel: "code for thousands of cores"

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/02/intel-says-code-for-thousands-of-cores/1

Chip manufacturer Intel is advising developers to concentrate on coding for scalability, believing the future of computing lies in hundreds and thousands of processing cores.

 

I'll be more interested when developers can use more than one effectively :/

Until then, more than two or four is completely redundant. Hell, four is probably OTT considering the lack of proper use all four get.

 

How is the game situation?

Are dualcores (or even quad) utilized yet?

And please don't answer "yeah, i've got the system running on one core, and the game on the other" I mean are games utilizing both (or all three/four) cores by now?

 

yeh but imagine the capabilities.... rofl.
i say bring them out... nobody will buy them but hey they will make the price of the quad extremes go down rofl.
i got a dual core atm. but its not the best. i just cant wait til they bring out something decent that will overclock to more than 10ghz yet stay as cool as a fridge.
introduce a new overclocking system or something.
they should be atleast 5ghz stock by now.


-burgerman

 

Muti Core - ( Tens / Hundred of Cores ) sounds to me just like the MHz race.
I think IPC and Mhz are still very important and should grow in both direction.

Instead of simple just add HUGE amount of core.

 

It sounds like "Let's learn how to thread CPU instructions!"

 

I want my 100+ core Sandy Bridge NOW.... despite the fact that over 90% of it's processing power won't be utilised.

 

If Intel pushes developers in this direction the GPU makers are going to be very happy. They already have processors with hundreds of cores. If the OS can run quickly on a CPU with hundreds of low-speed cores then why use the CPU at all?

 

What about a CPU with hundreds of high speed cores? Not to mention it'll be x86, far more flexible.

 

For those who posted up top, i know that supreme commander utilizes 3 cores, not massively efficiently and it could do with using 4 cores imo as game time still slips down to 1 game second=1.5 real life seconds. Some people had mentioned crysis' with its extra physics being a burden, but i have no experience with crysis so i couldnt comment on that....i think the fact of the matter is that cpu development is running too far ahead of software developers, especially when games take years to make...

peace

fatman

 

I thought Crysis' multi-core usage was supposed to be very disappointing.. It was supposed to use a whole 4 core CPU, but only ended up using 2 cores at any one time.

 

Excuses, excuses...

Plenty of applications could never be designed to be multi-threaded. There's lots of math that can only be done one step at a time, and passing the potato around from one core to the next with each step won't improve speed one bit. (though it might keep the thing cooler)

 

The Crysis Demo definitely did not use 4 cores effectively.

However, Assassin's Creed PC and Race Driver:GRiD do use 4 cores well. Assassin's creed is particularly well balanced across 4 processors.

 

very sure supreme commander is dual threaded as see CPU use when this game is running you add the 3 other cores up that tends to = 1 core, there are programs i think that you can run to make the supreme commander threads run on other cores

 

Agree with all those that want better multi-core support. Apps still in development and in the future need to be able to scale better to a multi core environment, whether it be 2, 3, 4 ... x number of cores.

 

I guess a good analogy for this would be having more than two testicles: It'd be nice, but you only really need two.

 

our brain is massively parallel and slow frequency... i wonder what will be the capabilities of the new cpus in AI and other areas.....

 

Hmmm i didn't knew GOLLUM works for intel

 

'Intel core 600 4.0GHz processor, guaranteed not to attempt world domination or your money back'

 

...is this still the old "core times out of sync" problem that the first AMD dual-cores had? I'd thought that issue had been rooted out since the 2nd gen x2 processors...

Remember the "I've got a dual core and every time i start a game i go into taskmanager and manually assign a single core...no now we've got a tool that does this automatically..cooool"?
Made me buy a quicker clocked single core at the time

But as I said, this is ancient history, right?