• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

64 Cores ???

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

WarriorII

Moderator #666
Joined
Nov 13, 2001
Location
Moderating
I can't believe that no one jumped on this.

Yes, I can see a PC with more than 2 CPU's in the General public.
-but at a high dollar price.

Do I want a small foot print PC?
I don't, my wife might.
My Boss doesn't care. My IT Dept might.

Am I going to have to purchase my multi core Quads now and save them for later
when I want to build another machine?

Why am I going to to do this ? The manufactures are forcing me/ us to.

$500 video cards... $1,000 cpu's...... :bang head

This is like th 3 Trillion dollars to upkeep the Air Forces next generation airplanes.

It's gonna cost us an Arm & a Leg !!!
What's wrong with what we have RIGHT NOW?

OK, run the 45nm cpu's. Who the heck wants an Atom cpu?

Yeah, it sounds cool, but do you think Joe Six Pak is gonna want
to upgrade every 6 months? especially now? and for more money?

I see the hardware sections haven't learned yet from the software sections.

It's not true, if you build it they will come.... XP/Vista

It's more like - when they are ready, they will start looking.

I do like the idea of having a mobo that is capable of handling more cpu's
if you want to add them. But what would that cost?

This is just Wild. 2012.
By 2017 NASA wants to go back to the moon.

Think they may want some more computing power?
 
I see that you are a folding member...
So, 64 cores is not a lot. Heck, I wish I had that, even if it costs 10,000
 
I wanted to write about this earlier, but couldn't start a thread here as I'm too new I guess.

If you assume the tasks we do, say in 5 years time, are about the same as what we do now, then arguably most people don't need more computing power. If anything, we're already seeing a movement downwards at the bottom. Low power, low cost. Good enough.

It will take a revolution to create demand for more power again. I can think of one near-future killer application that might justify that: voice recognition.

Voice recognition is continuously improving, but we're still far away from near natural language communication with an electronic device. It would be a revolution in the interface. Although I don't see it killing the keyboard and mouse, it would certainly change the balance.
 
Gee whiz, WarriorII. Please tell us how you REALLY feel about this... ;)

I can remember back in 1980, the physics professor at our college said that there was no way anyone would EVER need a computer with more than 20K total storage capacity.

While I believe it highly unlikely that we'll see 64-core desktops within the next four years, I think that eventually we'll see a move towards ever more cores that ALSO use less power to function AND a move towards even more device consolidation. Imagine taking virtually every gadget you now have and consolidating it into a single device.

Mackerel's observation is on the right track; user input and display technologies may well be the driving force for the next generation of computer development. Massive SMP will likely be useful for accurate, usable voice recognition and generation, 3-d holographic displays or other not-yet developed technologies which will replace the dated monitor-mouse-keyboard interface.
 
What I think we will see in the next 10 years is a push towards home server computing, with terminals around the house.
 
Possibly everything computerized like bill gates house. The technology is there but the using all that power with proper software would take along time. Also on the 64 cores, how do you think the test out the quality of nuclear cores in Pampa Texas. I worked in a project there and the super computers I saw there were mind boggling. You cant really control the military who has a blank check for everything. (5000 dollar toilets anyone::D
 
64 cores on a sandy bridge processor would be 256 threads too....

Nahalem is going to double the threads per core, and sandybridge will quadruple it.

Software people better get on top of maximizing thread usage imo.
 
There's a little insight into what Intel's Paul Otellini thinks we might do with more processing power in the future in a BBC news article.

Paul Otellini said:
For example, wouldn't it be great to be able to speak to your computer and have it understand and act on everything you say. That will take far more than 32 times the performance we have today.

It's not made clear where the "32 times" more performance comes from, although a 286 was mentioned earlier. I'm pretty sure we're a bit more than 32x faster than one of those.
 
Back