Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Axemantitan

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 16, 2008
542
97
With no other way to improve the performance of processors further, chip makers have staked their future on putting more and more processor cores on the same chip. Engineers at Sandia National Laboratories, in New Mexico, have simulated future high-performance computers containing the 8-core, 16‑core, and 32-core microprocessors that chip makers say are the future of the industry. The results are distressing. Because of limited memory bandwidth and memory-management schemes that are poorly suited to supercomputers, the performance of these machines would level off or even decline with more cores. The performance is especially bad for informatics applications—data-intensive programs that are increasingly crucial to the labs’ national security function.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov08/6912

umult01.jpg
 

OceanView

macrumors 65816
Sep 16, 2005
1,094
39
So 4 is better than 64?
I guess I don't have to buy another computer after I get a 4 core machine.:D
 

Arcadie

macrumors regular
Dec 6, 2008
197
0
well i would take a single core 8GHz CPU over a quad core 2 GHz CPU anyday.
Honestly 4 cores is enough, i rather intel work on bettering processors in other areas besides the number of cores.
 

iMacmatician

macrumors 601
Jul 20, 2008
4,249
55
This just further highlights the importance of the "uncore."

The upcoming Sandy Bridge microarchitecture will supposedly improve interconnections. Intel is also working on memory stacking etc. on CPUs in the far future.
 

wizzracer

macrumors 6502
Sep 17, 2007
281
0
Dallas, Texas
Just one hugh pipe. Say around 1024 lanes, each running up too 1gig bandwidth. Yea that should hold me for a few years.:eek:

Oh yea, give me 1 TB Upload and DL speed too, "For free":D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.