[Wyatt]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/i...uad-core-chip/

Yes, I know the article alone is not speculation. However, I'd like to discuss the potential implications of this for Apple. I realize it's not really necessary for desktops at this time (except maybe the next-gen PowerMac), but imagine how great it would be to see two quad core processors in the next generation XServes!

I wondered why we hadn't been hearing much about next-gen XServes, so could this be why? Could Apple have been helping with this project, or could they possibly have an XServe based on this in the works already? I think the implications of this development are absolutely huge. I can't wait to see what Apple does with this. What do you guys think?

[World Leader Pretend]

In 2008 Intel is slated to release a couple of 8 core processors as well. It comes from the 45nm process.

Maybe at the end of 2006 we'll see a Mac Pro with 2x4 core processors?

The "Mac OctaPro" or "Mac DualQuad Pro" or "Mac with Eight Individual Processors Professional" or.... "The Steve"

[Robo]

MacPro8...The Ocho.

[Kit Fisto]

Imagine such a machine running SETI@home, of course optimized for OS X.

[Moogs]

Or.... get this... Photoshop. Or Motion or Final Cut Pro. Now *that* would be useful.

Seriously though, I have to believe this thing dissipates a fair amount of heat. Rack servers only?

[Robo]

*drools*

[jcoley2]

Originally Posted by Moogs I have to believe this thing dissipates a fair amount of heat.

Actually, see this link below--Apple is working with GE on this concept: all in one computer and home heating system for the upcoming MacBook Octopus Pro:

www.notreallybutsurprisedyoulookedanyways.com

[monkeyclaw]

That would be an awesome machine, an 8 core PowerMac or MacPro whatever they want to call it, lol. Talk about bragging rights...

[Moogs]

That link is begging me not to look at it.

[ghoti]

Apart from bragging rights, eight cores won't buy you nearly as much as you'd think. They still share one memory bus, and if Intel doesn't significantly increase the cache sizes (2MB of shared L2 cache on the Core Duo is a joke), more cores will actually be slower. The memory subsystem is still much slower than the CPUs, and with several cores/CPUs accessing the same RAM, the wait times will increase. At some point (and that may well be at eight cores), the memory will have to be split into separate subsystems, so the cores don't get into each other's ways. Then, the communication between cores that sit in different subsystems will be much slower.

So there are (quickly) diminishing returns here, even if it may sound exciting to have eight cores in your machine instead of one. And for your typical desktop user, anything beyond two cores probably isn't going to make a big difference for practical work.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by ghoti (2MB of shared L2 cache on the Core Duo is a joke)

What?

PowerPC 7447A: 512 KB
PowerPC 970FX: 512 KB
PowerPC 970MP: 1 MB
Pentium 4 before Prescott: 1 MB
Pentium 4 as of Prescott: 2 MB
Barton Athlon XP: 512 KB
Athlon 64: 1 MB

Now, you probably mean it's "a joke" compared to server CPUs. Even that, however, isn't quite the case.

Opteron: 1 MB
Paxville Xeon (October 2005): 2 MB per core

So the only "joke" here may be that they're moving back from 2 MB per core to 2 MB for both cores, shared. If you consider, though, that the Yonah architecture operates on much lower latency, I'm not sure if the compromise isn't worth it.

[Luca]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend In 2008 Intel is slated to release a couple of 8 core processors as well. It comes from the 45nm process. Maybe at the end of 2006 we'll see a Mac Pro with 2x4 core processors? The "Mac OctaPro" or "Mac DualQuad Pro" or "Mac with Eight Individual Processors Professional" or.... "The Steve"

They should call it the... get this...

Four Speed DualQuad Positraction 409 Power Mac

[Bryson]

It's just the Mhz race all over again.

I have 4 processors...I have 8...16...32...eleventy billion quadrillion processors...wooo-hahahah!!

[dngonzales]

here is the macbook octopus pro i am going to order

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/octopus.jpg

[saschke]

Hahahaha

[Donm]

Originally Posted by ghoti Apart from bragging rights, eight cores won't buy you nearly as much as you'd think. They still share one memory bus, and if Intel doesn't significantly increase the cache sizes (2MB of shared L2 cache on the Core Duo is a joke), more cores will actually be slower. The memory subsystem is still much slower than the CPUs, and with several cores/CPUs accessing the same RAM, the wait times will increase. At some point (and that may well be at eight cores), the memory will have to be split into separate subsystems, so the cores don't get into each other's ways. Then, the communication between cores that sit in different subsystems will be much slower. So there are (quickly) diminishing returns here, even if it may sound exciting to have eight cores in your machine instead of one. And for your typical desktop user, anything beyond two cores probably isn't going to make a big difference for practical work.

Sorry, but you are wrong. For the quad core they will not share one memory bus and the cache sizes are growing. So I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Your comment about 2 cores being enough is sort of like what people were saying when they had 500Mhz CPU's saying that 1 GHz was too much and would never be needed. Well guess what...we have dual 2.1Ghz and climbing. Software developers will find ways to use the power.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by Donm Sorry, but you are wrong. For the quad core they will not share one memory bus and the cache sizes are growing.

But they still won't be able to access the same memory bank through two buses at the same time. And as for caches, that's what I said: they need to grow, and they can't be shared. Shared caches lead to thrashing, and thus kill performance. Especially if the cores are doing very different kinds of tasks in different parts of the memory.

Originally Posted by Donm Your comment about 2 cores being enough is sort of like what people were saying when they had 500Mhz CPU's saying that 1 GHz was too much and would never be needed. Well guess what...we have dual 2.1Ghz and climbing. Software developers will find ways to use the power.

Massively parallel computing is an extremely tough problem, even for people who do that all the time. And with eight and more cores, we're approaching that. What I'm saying is that you can't expect every-day tasks to be sped up by adding cores. Sure, you can make PS filters run on several cores at once, which will speed them up (and lead to more meaningless benchmarks), but there aren't many things that a majority of people do that are easily parallelized.

[euain]

Originally Posted by ghoti Massively parallel computing is an extremely tough problem, even for people who do that all the time. And with eight and more cores, we're approaching that. What I'm saying is that you can't expect every-day tasks to be sped up by adding cores. Sure, you can make PS filters run on several cores at once, which will speed them up (and lead to more meaningless benchmarks), but there aren't many things that a majority of people do that are easily parallelized.

True - but mainly when you are doing just one problem. Often computers are dealing with more than one problem. If the tasks on the cores are independent, you don't suffer nearly as badly as when you try to break one problem into many bits. You do not need to parallelise a single task and you don't suffer so much from a task stalling waiting for output from another.

On many computers, there are many different unrelated -or loosely-related - tasks going on. So if you are encoding audio, rendering a each of a number of different transitions or effects, running the GUI, checking mail, etc.- these can all run pretty much independently of each other and you should get a good speedup from multiple cores or processors.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Bryson It's just the Mhz race all over again. I have 4 processors...I have 8...16...32...eleventy billion quadrillion processors...wooo-hahahah!!

It'll be like all the people who compare car engines by the number of cylinders.

"You only have a Core Quatro?" HA! I have real American muscle with my Core Octo! I'd take that over your overclocked sub-compact notebooks any day!"

[AJF]

Yeah, the multi-core race won't be pretty if both AMD and Intel decide to jump into it full-force. AMD demonstrated a quad core months ago in its labs to a select few, so it's not like Intel is even innovating in that area...

[Robo]

The Cell processor has one main core and eight lesser cores.

Most of the products using the Cell will only use six of the lesser "SPU" cores, to increase yield. Even the PS3 only uses seven.

[jcoley2]

Originally Posted by dngonzales here is the macbook octopus pro i am going to order [/url]

Just remember I get bragging rights (and royalties) for the Octopus name if Apple takes it. . .

[ZachPruckowski]

Originally Posted by AJF Yeah, the multi-core race won't be pretty if both AMD and Intel decide to jump into it full-force. AMD demonstrated a quad core months ago in its labs to a select few, so it's not like Intel is even innovating in that area...

On the contrary, I'm actually kind of excited. Yes, it's a lot of re-thinking programming work, but ultimately, we can see how powerful massive paralell processing is by looking in a mirror. I mean, the brain is billions of slow processors with high latency interconnected to make us. Therefore, while it is a lot of work, it'll be great for technology in the long term.

[ghoti]

Bad analogy. The brain works in a way that is so completely not like any computer that there is just no comparison. It's like saying cars should have two wheels instead of four, because we are walking on two legs. Different technology, different parameters.

[ghoti]

Originally Posted by Roboman The Cell processor has one main core and eight lesser cores.

The cell also works different than a normal multi-core CPU. Each SPU has its own, local storage (256 KB), which is filled with data before the program starts to run on it, and that it can then use as scratch space. That way, the different cores don't get into each other's way and can work very efficiently in their local storage. This is great for things like encoding/decoding movies, and perhaps to an extent for games, but it's not suitable for general-purpose processing.

[AJF]

Soon I guess almost all software should be written to take advantage of as many cores / processors are available, thereby reducing the need to constantly re-write programs every time a new number of cores is introduced...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by AJF Soon I guess almost all software should be written to take advantage of as many cores / processors are available, thereby reducing the need to constantly re-write programs every time a new number of cores is introduced...

Edit: Oh wait, you said the same thing I did.

I guess my comprehension needs to catch up with my reading....

[shell]

Originally Posted by ghoti Bad analogy. The brain works in a way that is so completely not like any computer that there is just no comparison. It's like saying cars should have two wheels instead of four, because we are walking on two legs. Different technology, different parameters.

As long as we're making bad analogies: wouldn't the individual brain cells be more akin to the individual transistors of a computer chip rather than separate cores? Although the brain is divided into two halves, I see another bad analogy springing up ...

[ghoti]

LOL

Transistors and neurons also work in completely different ways, so just because there are many of them doesn't mean that the brain and a computer work the same way. And apart from the parts, it's also a question of organisation, which is (surprise!) totally different between the brain and a computer.