Computers :8 core CPU'S in 2008
 

comming in 2008...
then they say will go for 30 and more cores then 100's of core's
i cant imagine a computer with 100 cores (earch 3-4ghz)
so all of this means in 4-5 more years we will have super computers at home
with terahertz ;)
what do u people think about the subject?:upsidedow

Sounds like a blast! :)

can't wait for it......we're still at the very start

And than Microsoft releases its new OS and your 100 core performs like a 386 again. :thumbsup

there's no such thing as "too much cpu power"

and in 15 years we'll have software that can actually use the first 4 cores fully ;)

Hope the INTERNET speeds will keep up. No point having a super company and your still got a 1.5Mbps connection.

well all they say about this great power is it can be used to play realistic/photografic games.. and some other small thing.
:Oh crap

We will have Terahertz, but with nice audio/video licence protecting M$ OS, we will get Teranutz. This is greta newz for HP notebook fans. Cause with >30 cores, System might not hang with 60 default processes packed with default HP notebook installations. Oh, I'm sure somebody needs two processes and tray icons, to see how are he moving on touchpad and how hard he pushes it. :D

I think there will need to be new TPPATCH fixing another problem in old Pascal CRT unit.

I want one

So true.

It will be great in a laptop, you will have exactly 4 minutes of battery life.

:ohcrap

My new Mac, that I'm STILL waiting to be delivered, has 8.

You mean 1.5 up right? :winkwink:

http://www.speedtest.net/result/226883198.png

tad slow today usually break 30k down. :disgust

No he is saying double what you have per cpu. You have 8 total with dual quad core, he is saying 8 core per cpu.

You can get dual quad core servers right now for $180 at http://www.cari.net

As far as the net keeping up, Verizon FIOS now offers 15 MB down and up!! WOOT!!

lol, nice spam...

Actually, there is hope for that;

* If the O/S is constructed well for multi-core, *any* software for that OS will benefit.
* Once compilers for all common programming languages are optimized for multi-core, applications will benefit 'just-like-that', in one swoop.

Choose a nice *NIX for O/S today instead of Winblows, and excellent support & optimization for optimal multi-core computing is there, right out the box! :thumbsup

Parallell computing is where it's at, no coincidence it is (and has been for quite some time) the core concept of most super computers...

The future is gonna be cool in these aspects... :pimp

nevertheless i still love my commodore :)

No, i ment 1.5 down. I have 256 up. Australia sucks for broadband.

I am personally waiting for the solid state HDs .. something in the 200Gb to TB size all flash style .. then we can do away with whos got bigger ram .. it iwll all be there ready .. allocated and no spinup time .. just BAM .. theres what you wanted to do .. done .

SSD's are great for random access but unless you basically have a RAID array of SSD's you won't see very good sustainable speed.

Hybrid is where its at ;)

No shit people don't realize this. There's nothing out there that uses quad cores fully. You have 2 cores sitting there doing squat. WTF are you going to use 8 cores for?

even under linux you won't really EVER touch all 8 cores, there are too many other bottlenecks in performance.

RAM speed?
Hard drive?
RAM --> CPU BUS
CPU cache --> CPU

Personally I'd like to see them focus on bus speed, RAM speed and ESPECIALLY cache size and speed before they go tacking on yet even more cores. TODAYS apps can take advantage of the added fast cache. I'd even settle for like those old XEON L3 1/2Mb cache they used to have as an off chip added cache which was slower but it was a workaround for the complexities of large amounts of cache actually IN the CPU.

Even video encoding I don't believe will be able to use all 8 CPU's fully EVEN in linux

Samsung has 64 GB solid state drives. Really really expensive. Probably at least 3-4 years before prices become affordable.

from an article

"the 64 GB unit can read 64 MB/S, write 45 MB/s, and consumes just half a Watt when operating (one tenth of a Watt when idle). In comparison, an 80 GB 1.8-inch hard drive reads at 15 MB/s, writes at 7 MB/s, and eats 1.5 Watts either operating or when idle. "

So it reads over 4 times faster and write 6 times faster. That would be nice to have. Not for $1000 though.

Excuse me farkedup, but.. come on! Don't be so negative, lol

You've heard about clustering, right? In Linux among other OS's? For video encoding? :winkwink:

The bottlenecks commonly thought of, aren't that bad today first of all...
Second of all, if clustering with all it's bottlenecks is beneficial for video encoding and other more massive computing, multi-core computing is as well.

Sure, all the other aspects could be improved to (and most likely will be), but there's a lot to gain with multi-core, period.

On the topic of SSD by the way... what about M-RAM ("Magneto RAM") technology?
Shit, when that is developed fully for consumer computing and has become consumer affordable, it'll whoop Flash/similar based SSD's ass, big time! :thumbsup:

Technology is amazing

Just what we will need to down load and watch HD porn.

NosMo

Doesn't matter, Vista will still bring it to a crawl.

Would be nice if they actually wrote software that used SMP more effectively. Unless you are doing some kind of rendering or I doubt that many cores would do much for the average power user.

What you're talking about "clustering" is the real solution here. Clustering is bringing multiple WHOLE COMPUTERS together and tieing them together to solve problems. using whole computers complete with standalone CPU bus's, RAM banks, hard drives is completely different than a single set of CPU's tied to a single bank of RAM and 1 or so hard drives

When they invented "dual channel ram" you know what bottleneck that was targetted for? For every single CPU core they NEED to have at least 1 dedicated stick of RAM and a direct pipeline from the RAM to that CPU core. pair that with more CPU cache itself and you're in business.

In the future I'd like to have 8 CPU cores and a bank of either 8 or 16 1-2Gb sticks of RAM but at this time 64 bit windows just isn't anywhere near ready. Maybe when windows 7 comes out we'll have better luck?

Compilers for everything have been out for a while now to help with multi threading but there is still quite a ways to go. You have to remember that having 2 CPU's in a computer is a relatively new mainstream thing. Not all of us had dual 1Ghz P3's, hell I had SMP in my work stations back before that even... I was a big pentium pro fan (think 200Mhz area)

SO while you guys look at quad core chips, don't bother for another year or so, buy the same priced higher clock speed dual core for now. unless the only thing you do all day is video encoding and wishing your penis were bigger, quad core doesn't do much good right now. I've been on an E6300 since around the time they came out and have overclocked the hell out of it but I'm still planning on throwing down the cash for the higher bus speed, more cache chip. Generally the best bargin CPU's are the ones in the $250 or less bin, once you go above that you start wasting money fast. I used to keep top notch systems all the time back when I got all the hardware for free but the second I started paying for shit again I quit with that ;) generally run through yearly upgrade cycles. I don't game on the PC so I can get away with that...

FIOS is not available in your area.. WHAT A TEASE!

sounds awesome

I don't think most people really need that much CPU power, when all most people do is to play a few movies, type up some crap in a word processor and browse the Internet.

That said, I'm willing to bet some of the first adopters will be those people, just so they can brag to their friends.

Shit I'm pretty stoked on my new "quadwhore", as I've dubbed it. Cut my rendering times considerable over my previous dual-core setups pretty substantially.

That's all they do for the moment. :2 cents:

Good stuff. forward motion. :thumbsup

i analyze my chess games, so I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some crazy advancements in home computer power.. I used to run a PC on chess.net that would play humans and other computers all day long back in the day, I should sort one of those out again.. It was neat to look over and watch a grandmaster playing my PC :)

i have pentim 4 2.6ghz .. with 1gb ram .. and some programs still manage to stuck :(

you need more RAM.... If you have XP you should have 2Gb RAM and if you have vista 3Gb!

Sounds nice.

Wish it was available now.