Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Intel Processors
madison writes to mention coverage at ZDNet on the future of Intel technology. Multicore chips are their focus for the future, and researchers at the company are working on methods to adapt them for specific uses. The article cites an example were the majority of the cores are x86, with some accelerators and embedded graphics cores added on for added functionality. "Intel is also tinkering with ways to let multicore chips share caches, pools of memory embedded in processors for rapid data access. Cores on many dual- and quad-core chips on the market today share caches, but it's a somewhat manageable problem. "When you get to eight and 16 cores, it can get pretty complicated," Bautista said. The technology would prioritize operations. Early indications show that improved cache management could improve overall chip performance by 10 percent to 20 percent, according to Intel." madison also writes, "In another development news Intel has updated its Itanium roadmap to include a new chip dubbed 'Kittson' to follow the release of Poulson. That chip will be based on a new microarchitecture that provides higher levels of parallelism."
I think Cell's taught us two important things about heterogeneous multicore:
:) Buy stock in gcc...
1. It's fairly hard to develop for.
2. It's bloody fast.
Looks like Intel's gonna be running with it some; that's good news for anyone making a living selling compilers!
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
While multicores, obviously, have their use, the future belongs to CPUs with massive internal implicit parallelism, IMHO.
With process sizes getting smaller and smaller, it is interesting to watch new ideas for as to what to do with that newfound area. The elementary choice seemed to always be "throw on more cores" but the prospects of accelerators and bridges moving into Systems-on-Chips looks like it might have much nicer prospects.
The average parallism factor for most programs tends to hover around four. I think Intel might have figured out that this is a decent stopping point for hardware parallelism as well.
What I really want is a dialogue with Intel engineers about this piece of Intel-themed news. Why can't you add something like that to the site? You could call it something like Opinions With Intel or Intel And Opinions or Center for Intel. No that's not quite right.
So we can can have comments in parallel.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Buy stock in gcc..
/ eng/compilers/284132.htm">compiler...
Yeah, cause, you know, Intel doesn't make their own http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na
I hate to break it to ya, but in a low-level language like C, doing proper bounds checks and data sanitization required for security does not help performance (although it doesn't harm it much either, and should of course always be done)
There is a lot of bloated code out there, but the bad news for people who always post "just write better code!" is that the truly processor-intensive stuff (like image processing, 3D games) is already pretty well optimized to take advantage of modern hardware.
There's also the definition of what "good code" actually is. I could write a parallelized sort algorithm that would be nowhere near as fast as a decent quicksort on modern hardware. However, on hardware from 10 years from now with a big number of cores, the parallelized algorithm would end up being faster. So which one is the 'good' code?
As usual, real programming problems in the real world are too complex to be solved by 1-line Slashdot memes.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Well, the analogy I've always heard was "1 woman can have 1 baby in 9 months, but 9 women can't have 1 baby in 1 month." Lesson here: not everything is as "parallelizable" as digging a ditch. Data dependency in single execution threads means there often simply isn't enough independent work that can be done at once. Moreover, it is often left up to the user (or third party vendors) to create the application library to take advantage of parallel processing. Almost all code being run at this moment was writen in a serial, higher-level language (such as C++) for serial execution (even if it utilizes threading in the OS). The Cell didn't provide a very good API, and even trivially parallelizable algorithms often have to be rewritten in assembly code to take full advantage of the available hardware. And that just plain sucks.
Intel needs to develop new processor technologies to significantly increase native performance rather than just adding more cores. Whether multi-core processors can significantly increase performance for standard applications hasn't yet been proven and even if possible, will depend on the willingness of developers to do the extra work to make it happen.
If software developers can't or won't take advantage of the potential benefits of multi-core, Intel and AMD may have to significantly cut the price of their processors because upgrading won't add much value.
It seems that Intel very rarely mentions clock speed in any of their roadmap briefings. The clock speed increases over the last five years or so have been pretty minimal. Moore's law talks about the rate transistor density increases. But, clock speed has followed a similar curve until recently. The last 4-5 years has to be the longest plateau in the history of the industry.
Yes, I know they changed to a new architecture that put less emphasis on raw clock speed. But, given that more efficient architecture, clock speed increases are still going to be a major benefit.
So, what's the story? Has the industry hit a wall? How long will it take to get back to above 3GHz for a mainstream processor, or even to the 4GHz levels that the old Pentium IVs were pushing.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the power efficiencies of the new chips. For my primary purposes (laptop, HTPC) the new chips are a godsend. And, the thought of specialized "accelerator" cores is fantastic (a video decoder core for MPEG2 & H.264, please). But, doing that same thing at 4GHz is even more compelling (of course, with the speedstep++ stuff to shut down cores when not needed, and throttle back to low GHz to save power).
What we really need is for software to catch up. Luckily some programs like Premiere, Photoshop have supported multiple CPU's for a while now. But games, etc can really benefit from this. Just stick AI on 1 core, terrain on another, etc etc.
I've found that improved cash management does wonders for me, like allowing me to buy things like new processors.
This guy's the limit!
What would a duck do with 80 cores? Quack in harmony?
Where will all the CPU time go on desktops with these highly parallel processors?
Define "bloat". For example, do you classify 'features', as in adding more of them, as bloat? I think the word "bloat" is thrown around so much that few people have a good definition of it anymore. For example, features (what lots of people call 'bloat') that aren't used *shouldn't* cause performance issues as the code for them isn't executed.
Besides, if we stopped adding features, we'd still be using things like ed for editing (and 'word processing'), our games would still be like Pong, and our remote access would still be VT52 terminals.
The parent's point is that in code where it makes a difference, the code is already thoroughly optimized, in general. Slimming down the code for Microsoft Word or XEmacs or Firefox or Nautilus or iTunes (there, now we've slaugthered everyone's sacred cow!) isn't likely to make much of a difference because apps like these already run plenty fast on modern hardware. Sure, bloat is bad, but it's a lot harder to remove bloat from existing code without removing features than it sounds. If bloat is an issue, use an equivalent app with less features -- nano instead of XEmacs, for instance.
My blog
I'd much rather they focussed on making chips more energy efficient than faster. At the moment barring a few high end applications most of the cpu power on the majority of current processors is largely unused.
I dream of the day when my gaming computer doesn't need any active cooling, or heat sinks the size of houses. Focussing on efficiency would also force developers to write better code, honestly its unbelievable how badly some programs run and how resource intensive they are for what they do.
The thing that is the future for Intel is not only the bizillion cores and cheaper/faster, but to do so with outstanding energy efficiency. This is obviously important for portable computing, but it's also important to reduce heat load and power consumption in large data centers. Cost of ownership comparisons have yet to include power consumption, but as green house gas taxes start making their way onto electric bills, it's likely to be a selling point.
More and more there's a need for extremely energy efficient, low footprint devices for special purpose applications. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to have PC sucking 60 watts when all you need is something to run Minicom to a simple 15" LCD screen.
For some reason javascript is slow on all browsers. I believe there is a W3C spec that mandates it.
If intel used just one socket, then you would have portions of a socket unused on some systems, but it would cost less to do the design, because there would be only one design. They don't do this because a socket with less pins costs less.
I don't know if that's what you wanted to know...
Intel and AMD could ostensibly remain eternally interchangeable; they are not and long have not been socket-level-compatible anyway. And they're not 100% interchangeable, if you fritter around at low levels you will find things that must be done differently on each processor, which is why [for example] the Linux kernel is configured differently for each.
The last time intel and AMD were socket-compatible was Socket Super 7.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's what they need to do. Rather than make one chip look like two, it's easier to get max performance by making more than one core appear as one.
Totally wrong. Someone parent down. Electrons do not move more than a fraction of a millimetre per second. It is actually the electric field along the conductor, which moves at the speed of light, that carries signal.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"