Slashdot Mirror


Intel Squeezes 1.8 TFlops Out of One Processor

Jagdeep Poonian writes "It appears as though Intel has been able to squeeze 1.8 TFlops out of one processor and with a power consumption of 62 watts." The AP version of the story is mostly the same; a more technical examination of TeraScale is also available.

35 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine a Beowolf cluster of those!!

    1. Re:Oblig. by niconorsk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's quite fun to consider that when the original joke was made, the processing power of that Beowulf cluster would probably been quite close to the processing power of the processor discussed in the article.

      --
      Nothing is impossible. We just haven't quite worked out how to do it yet.
    2. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is entirely not true that you could replace today's fastest computer with this kind of technology and get the same performance. These new Intel CPU's are really difficult to program efficiently. You would only get good performance on certain problems sets.

    3. Re:Oblig. by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it doesn't take special problem sets and programming on the current supercomputers?

  2. Both cool and useless for 99% of computing by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The trick like SPEs is finding way to efficiently use them in as many tasks as they can.

    I'm glad to see Intel is using their size for more than x86 core production though.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  3. The title is misleading by xoyoboxoyobo · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not 62 watts at 1.8 teraflops. That's 62 watts at 3.16 GHz FTFA: "Intel claims that it can scale the voltage and clock speed of the processor to gain even more floating point performance. For example, at 5.1 GHz, the chip reaches 1.63 TFlops (2.61 Tb/s) and at 5.7 GHz the processor hits 1.81 TFlops (2.91 Tb/s). However, power consumption rises quickly as well: Intel measured 175 watts at 5.1 GHz and 265 watts at 5.7 GHz. However, considering the fact that just 202 of these 80-core processors could replicate the floating point performance of today's highest performing supercomputer, those power consumption numbers appear even more convincing: The Department of Energy's BlueGene/L system, rated at a peak performance of 367 TFlops, houses 65,536 dual core processors."

  4. Just imagine by andyck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Intel" "Introducing the NEW CORE 80, personal laptop supercomputer running Windows waste my ram and cpu cycles SP2 edition" But seriously this looks interesting for the future. Now we just need software to fully utilize multicore processors.

  5. What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this permit the practical use of any truly breakthrough apps?

    Does it suddenly make previously crappy technologies worthwhile? I.e., does image recognition or untrained speech recognition become a mainstream technology with this new processing power?

    1. Re:What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does it suddenly make previously crappy technologies worthwhile?

      Vista?

      (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

    2. Re:What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Clippy?

      "It looks like you're writing a five-page essay on the role of the Judicial branch during periods of famine in the late 1850's."

    3. Re:What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Atomistic simulations of biomolecules. Chain a bunch of those together, and you begin to simulate systems on realistic time scales. Higher-resolution weather models, or faster and better processing of seismic data for exploration. Same reason that we perked up when the R8000 came out with its (for the time) aggressive FPU. 125 MFlops/proc@75MHz was nothing to sneeze at 15 years ago. If they can get this chip into production in usable quantities, and if it has the throughput, then they're on to something this time.

      Of course, this could just be a single-chip CM2; blazingly fast but almost impossible to program.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    4. Re:What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by Intron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Realtime, photorealistic animation and speech processing? Too bad AI software still sucks or this could pass a Turing test where you look at someone on a screen and don't know whether they are real or not.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    5. Re:What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by Intron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, your post made me realize that a sophisticated processor is unnecessary. It's already difficult to tell whether a message is from a human or just a randomly generated string of nonsense.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    6. Re:What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does this permit the practical use of any truly breakthrough apps?

      From my understanding perhaps with that many cores, the OS could simply allocate one application per core.

      But the OS has to support that feature or have applications that know how to call unused cores.

      From my understanding Parallels for OS X only uses one core and picks the second core to run on for the best performance.

      Of course then there are applications that could be programmed to use all the cores at once if they needed to do scientific calculations or something like Ray Tracing.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    7. Re:What kinds of apps does this make reasonable? by Heembo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to teach 5th grade computer class, and please do not underestimate the power of Clippy(tm). I would instruct my students to remove Clippy, as I have done per habit for so long, but they would rebel. I recall at least several classes where Clippy hypnotized my class (and kept them preoccupied and easy to deal with.)

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
  6. 99% is exagerated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first thing that jumped out at me was the presence of MACs. They are the heart of any DSP. So, this chip is good for computation although not necessarily processing. As other posters have pointed out, this chip could become a very cool GPU. It should also be awesome for encryption and compression. Given that the processor is already an array, it should be a natural for spreadsheets and math programs such as Matlab and Scilab. Having a chip like this in my computer just might obviate the need for a Beowolf cluster. :-)

  7. EIGHTY Cores??? by rwyoder · · Score: 4, Funny

    64 cores should be enough for anybody.

  8. I see that as a feature... by StressGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get the bugs worked out be Xmas and you could sell at 1.81 Tflop easy-bake oven

    {...I need more sleep...}

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  9. Wow, I can't wait! by cciRRus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gonna get one of these. That should bump up my Vista Experience score.

    --
    w00t
    1. Re:Wow, I can't wait! by daeg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Except there won't be any Vista drivers. Damn!

  10. Real-time Ray Tracing? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When I read about this I didn't get all worked up, since I imagine that it will be almost impossible for realistic applications to keep all 80 cores busy and get the teraflop benefits. But then I read about the possibility of using this for real-time ray tracing, and got very intrigued!

    Ray tracing is embarassingly parallelizable, and while I'm no expert, two terraflops might just be enough calculating power to do a pretty good job at scene rendering, maybe even in real time. To think this performance would be available from a standard 65nm die that uses 65 watts... that really could make a difference to gamers!

    1. Re:Real-time Ray Tracing? by Vigile · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep, that's one of the things that got me excited about it as well. Did you also read this article on ray tracing on the same pcper.com site by a German guy that made a Quake 4 ray tracing engine?

      http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=334

    2. Re:Real-time Ray Tracing? by ispeters · · Score: 5, Informative

      Secondly, why is the parallelizable nature of ray tracing embarrassing?! It's parallelizable exactly because each ray is computed independently of other rays - I don't see what is embarrassing or surprising about that.

      It's embarrassing because "Embarrassingly parallel" is the technical term for problems like ray tracing. It's a parallelizable problem wherein the concurrently-executing threads don't need to communicate with each other in order to complete their tasks so the performance of a parallel solution scales almost perfectly linearly with the number of processors that you throw at the problem.

      Ian

    3. Re:Real-time Ray Tracing? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'd heard about the Quake3 thing somewhere else. It's pretty cool with Quake4. What really impressed me, though, is that when they multiplied the number of polygons in the scene by several orders of magnitude, rendering performance fell only 60% or so. This makes it seem like an increase in processing power will accomodate an expoential improvement in scene detail. This confirms my suspicion that real-time ray tracing is the future of game graphics.

      The fact that ray-traced Quake3 works OK in real time on present (though big - but not specialized) hardware makes me think that Intel's chip might be able to do some impressive real-time ray-tracing already, and a 2012 version of the chip would render nicer scenes through ray-tracing than would conventional GPUs made with 2012 technology.

  11. Tflops all over the place. by tocs · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope they can get them back in.

  12. I for one welcome our new Android overlords... by doomy · · Score: 5, Informative

    33 of these CPU's should be more than enough to construct Lt. Cmdr Data.

    --
    ...free your source and the rest would follow...
  13. exaflop computers? by peter303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since petaflops are likely by the end of the decade its time to imagine exaflops in 2020.

  14. What is the point for 80 cores on the FSB by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The FSB will be a big bottleneck even more so with the cpu needing to use to get to ram. You would need about 3-4 FSBs with 1-2 mb per core of L2 to make it fast.

  15. Narrow Minded by Deltronica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many comments on this post are centered around the processor's use as a personal computing solution. There is much more to computing than PCs! When viewed alongside specialized programming technology, bioinformatics, neurology, and psychology, this (rather large) leap in processing power brings AI to yet another level, and continues the law of accelerated returns. I'm not saying "oh wow now we can have human-like AI", I'm just saying that the ability to process 1.8 Tflops is nothing to scoff. Personal computing is inane and almost moot when compared to the other applications that new processors may pave the way for. Know your facts, but use your imagination.

  16. You won't notice a performance difference... by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Funny

    They've already allocated 40 cores to the RIAA and MPAA for DRM processing, 30 cores to NSA/Homeland Security surveillance of all your computing activities, and 6 cores to combat spam and phishing. In the end, there is no net gain in performance over today's processors. Sorry.

    (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  17. About time... by nadamucho · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like Intel finally put the "80" in 80x86.

  18. Sorry by rbarreira · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sorry, I obviously meant "Base 1010 sucks"...

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  19. Uh oh. by chihowa · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are we allowed to imagine a Beowulf cluster of chips that obviate the need for a Beowulf cluster?

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  20. What I'd like to see... by petrus4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...is a version of the Sims 2 rewritten so that the Sims have a much greater degree of genuine autonomy, and for said version to be run without human intervention (and recorded) for a period of months or years on a multiple TFlop system. If the environment was made a lot more detailed than it is in the retail version of the game, and if the Sims were given somewhat more capacity for learning than what they've currently got, something tells me the results of such an experiment might be extremely interesting, given enough time.

  21. Re:looks like the old inmos transputer T800 ... by SemanticPhilosopher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or more like the T9s... So the 32way crossbar switch, with 32 processors that I have working in the garage is coming back into fashion... Now if all the work that we did on interconnect topologies and their performance in networks up to size 1024 nodes might be useful. Hey we might even make something from the book!.... Welcome back to the late '80s Intel - do yourselves a favour - read the literatature - we've done the painful stuff already - you don't need to waste money on the fundemental research - its been done!