News Tilera unveils 100-core processor

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/10/29/tilera-unveils-100-core-processor/1

High-performance computing specialist Tilera has announced the creation of the world's first 100-core processor, aimed at providing a simpler cloud computing platform.

 

i dont get this...100 cores...25 times what we have now, and only 4 times as powerful? so, and i haven't looked at intel's roadmap recently, but i would imagine by 2011 they will have an eight-core cpu at least in the works, this 100 core chip will be about as powerful as that? theoretically?

i know i probably dont get where this has a significant advantage somewhere...just seems like a waste...

 

it all marketing BS

4 times as powerful

at what some specific highly multi threaded app how doe sthis compare to cuda which is the current equvalent

 

This would be very useful in the field of grid computing and cloud computing, saving a shed load of space and less cooling for hopefully similar or better performance. But as yakyb said, GPUs will be competing with these CPUs head to head and cuda has had a huge lead on it. Infact where I work we're looking into using nVidia GPUs for our grid solutions, so I think its got an uphill struggle.

Saying that, if they are supremely power efficient then that could be the ace up its sleeve that it needs....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law

This is why do dont get a 25 fold increase in speed. Also bear in mind the cpus are clocked alot slower than other cpu cores.

the biggest news is the performance per watt. Increasing this by an order of magnitude is going to make cloud and server providers sit up and take notice.

 

this is actually fairly old news, I mean really old news, Im not sure if it was this company but a 100core CPU has already been made and as for performance it was more focused for the manycore concept then the multicore concept that we know now.

 

Sounds a lot like Larrabee. If OS's have to add support for masses of CPU's for that, why not for this?

 

I wanna see what the Performance tab in Task Manager looks like with that! ;-)

 

Forget about the 100cores, the GHz, the watts etc. It's all about the architecture. Intel made an 80core CPU running at 10GHz years ago IIRC. The thing stopping them was the non-conventional architecture. Your hardware is only as good as the software you can run on it.

 

No, even if they have an ace up their sleeves and successfully make a three of a kind aces, I'd say any GPGPU (ATI or NVIDIA) will at least beat them with a fullhouse, or a higher hands

 

You are assuming it is being compared to a Intel and AMD chip then yeah??
What about other CPU's commercially avaliable??

 

You mean something like this?

 

Can't use YouTube here at work so can't see that for now, but I think it's the AMD Opteron with 16 cores isn't it? Seen that, with the task manager spread over two windows full of "cores" - still wanna see what the tab with 100 little boxes looks like! Would be epic!

 

Vid description: Intel's Kennedy Brown and IBM's Kevin Powell show you a sneak peek of an 8 socket, 64 core, 128 thread IBM server based on Intel's Nehalem-EX processor.

 

Three cheers for innovation. Ok, maybe its not brand new as some people have pointed out. But going against the norm is one way that we can advance technology.
Good job Tilera.

 

I wonder how this compares to GPGPU tech. On former side you can use existing hardware and plug more GPUs in to scale (like nVidias Tegra) or have a customised operating system and and entirely new hardware to support these chips...

Hmmmm.

I'm working off the assumption that these chips are built to handle massively parrallel but simple tasks, and thus have drawn the comparison to CUDA/OpenCL.

 

@Identikit: Something like http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx then? (just look at the picture)

 

So these are x86 cores?

I think sticking with fewer, more powerful cores for now will suffice.. With CUDA/OpenCL for any massively multithreaded applications.

Yeah, that's probably better than a 100-core CPU... Since with GPGPU you get way, way more "cores" to thread through.