Intel details future Larrabee graphics chip
in [Design]
|
Prev: LM3478 design gets insanely hot
Next: 89C51ED2
From: Skybuck Flying on 5 Aug 2008 07:30 As the number of cores goes up the watt requirements goes up too ? Will we need a zillion watts of power soon ? Bye, Skybuck.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 5 Aug 2008 08:26 Skybuck Flying wrote: > As the number of cores goes up the watt requirements goes up too ? > > Will we need a zillion watts of power soon ? > > Bye, > Skybuck. Since the ATI Radeon� HD 4800 series has 800 cores you work it out. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
From: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2008 11:24 On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:30:52 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" <BloodyShame(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >As the number of cores goes up the watt requirements goes up too ? Not necessarily, if the technology progresses and the clock rates are kept reasonable. And one can always throttle down the CPUs that aren't busy. > >Will we need a zillion watts of power soon ? > >Bye, > Skybuck. > I saw suggestions of something like 60 cores, 240 threads in the reasonable future. This has got to affect OS design. John
From: John Larkin on 5 Aug 2008 15:38 On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:24:04 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:30:52 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" ><BloodyShame(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>As the number of cores goes up the watt requirements goes up too ? > >Not necessarily, if the technology progresses and the clock rates are >kept reasonable. And one can always throttle down the CPUs that aren't >busy. > >> >>Will we need a zillion watts of power soon ? >> >>Bye, >> Skybuck. >> > >I saw suggestions of something like 60 cores, 240 threads in the >reasonable future. > Oops, 4 threads per core is 320 threads. My XP is currently running 33 processes and maybe a couple dozen device drivers. John
From: Chris M. Thomasson on 5 Aug 2008 15:54
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:rtrg9458spr43ss941mq9p040b2lp6hbgg(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:30:52 +0200, "Skybuck Flying" > <BloodyShame(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>As the number of cores goes up the watt requirements goes up too ? > > Not necessarily, if the technology progresses and the clock rates are > kept reasonable. And one can always throttle down the CPUs that aren't > busy. > >> >>Will we need a zillion watts of power soon ? >> >>Bye, >> Skybuck. >> > > I saw suggestions of something like 60 cores, 240 threads in the > reasonable future. I can see it now... A mega-core GPU chip that can dedicate 1 core per-pixel. lol. > This has got to affect OS design. They need to completely rethink their multi-threaded synchronization algorihtms. I have a feeling that efficient distributed non-blocking algorihtms, which are comfortable running under a very weak cache coherency model will be all the rage. Getting rid of atomic RMW or StoreLoad style memory barriers is the first step. |