Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Unveils 6-Core Xeon 7400

Posted by kdawson on from the not-cheaper-by-the-half-dozen dept.

JagsLive recommends CNet coverage that begins "Intel officially unveiled its six-core 'Dunnington' Xeon 7400 processor Monday ... As expected, Intel launched the Dunnington chip for high-end servers ... The Xeon 7400 is also one of the first Intel chips to have a monolithic design. In other words, all six cores will be on one piece of silicon. To date, for any processor having more than two cores, Intel has put two separate pieces of silicon ... inside one chip package."

38 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. And we're now tuesday by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm betting new Mac Pros will be launched today.

    1. Re:And we're now tuesday by sgbett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://www.apple.com/uk/imac/

      Hmm, the page you're looking for can't be found.

      interesting.

      --
      Invaders must die
    2. Re:And we're now tuesday by Trashman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The article from Ars technica says:

      "Unlike the 65nm, quad-core Tukwila, Dunnington is produced on Intel's 45nm process. This means that Dunnington uses less power, and indeed, the top-end, 2.66GHz SKU has a 130W TDP (compare Tukwila's 170W TDP). The 2.4GHz part boasts a 90W TDP, and there's a 2.13GHz part that runs at a relatively cool 65W."

      --
      Do not read this .sig
  2. Base 2 by daveime · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is it just me, or does 6 seem like a counter intuitive number of cores ?

    2,4,8,16 ... we've been using binary since the start, now we have to start in trinary ?

    1. Re:Base 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      6 = 8 - 2 broken cores ?

    2. Re:Base 2 by davidbrit2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, 6 is a power of 2. It's 2^2.585, to be inexact.

    3. Re:Base 2 by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Is it just me, or does 6 seem like a counter intuitive number of cores ?

      Remember they need to put other stuff on the silicon too. The XBox 360's CPU uses three quarters of the die for three processors and puts the shared cache etc. in the fourth quarter. Six + support circuitry probably fits a square die better than eight + support.

    4. Re:Base 2 by tgd · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it just matters that you have more than one.

    5. Re:Base 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      2^(log2(6)) to be exact.

    6. Re:Base 2 by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pentium 1 user, aren't you?

    7. Re:Base 2 by Macrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course their die surface is 8 times bigger too.

    8. Re:Base 2 by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Informative

      That has nothing to do with symmetric multiprocessing. SMP means that all the chips can make memory accesses to all the memory at the same speed. It is the opposite of Non-Uniform Memory Access, or NUMA, in which certain processors (some or all of them) take longer to talk to certain parts of main memory than others or systems in which processors have a faster path to some private off-chip memory in addition to the main shared memory.

    9. Re:Base 2 by dubbreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AMD once said there was a greater efficiency in interconnecting 3 cores, compared to 4.

      Anyone with simple graph theory can see that. 3 nodes only need 3 edges(or interconnects in this case) so that they are only one hop away from each other. With 4 nodes you need 6 edges for a complete graph / clique (each node is adjacent). Now whether that is applicable to the amd chip is a whole other question. I don't have the time (nor do I care to) look up the implementation of the chips.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  3. Yes! It should totally be a power of two. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they're really making 8-core chips but their factories are primitive so normally only about six of them work.

    These chips are all defective. I wouldn't buy one and neither should you.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why are you responding to a fact as if it's speculation or a joke?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

      I steal my computers from really rich orphans. 'Course, if they have parents, it takes just a little work and they're soon orphans.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. by rugatero · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why the hell am I responding at all?

      --
      This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
    4. Re:Yes! It should totally be a power of two. by daedae · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The AMD point is true (useless side note: I actually just got a machine with a Phenom tri-core a few weeks ago), but if you look at the die photo you can see that there's nowhere for a pair of disabled cores. It's possible that they're just making native 6-core dies until they get the manufacturing process stable enough to make 8s though. /me is okay with the fact he's probably just feeding trolls

  4. Specs? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There wasn't much in terms of technical specs in TFA. 6 cores, 16MB cache, anything else? Clock speed? 16MB of L2? L3? FSB? DDR(n)? (Though this is probably more up to the MB manufacturer) Why are they moving the memory controller off silicon? That in itself seems like a step backwards.

    I would like to see them pushing consumer multi-core computing more personally. Get MS and other application manufacturers to support more cores. Servers have been doing it for ages and with pretty much all consumer level chips being dual core they should be pushing this angle more.

    Though, them incorporating all of the cores on a single piece of silicon is definitely a step forward; the lack of additional specs and the notion of moving the memory controller make this seem like not as big of an announcement...

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:Specs? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would like to see them pushing consumer multi-core computing more personally. Get MS and other application manufacturers to support more cores. Servers have been doing it for ages and with pretty much all consumer level chips being dual core they should be pushing this angle more.

      And before anyone says...."yeah, but Linux/Mac OS X supports multi-cores out of the box".... Yes, yes it does. However, most of the applications don't actually benefit much from SMP by themselves. A few things like video conversion, but, for the most part, office suites, e-mail user agents, etc., do not actually benefit directly from SMP.

      OTOH, why should they? Any processor made within the last five years is good enough for that stuff.

      --
      My blog
  5. It has six cores... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and a moisturizer strip for a cool, refreshing finish.

    --
    UTF-8: There and Back Again
    1. Re:It has six cores... by shams42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did Intel partner with Gillette on this CPU? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930

  6. Wattage by locster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think server builders these days are less interested in the number of cores per CPU and more interested in improvements in the performance/wattage ratio.

  7. so this means by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    i might finally be able to play crysis on my vista ultimate machine? i mean, granted, my pc will look more like a LHC when im through with it...but a few black holes are worth it

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  8. With a catch.... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, Informative

    "There's an odd catch, however, that will affect the highest of high-end configurations. "Because Microsoft Windows operating system support is limited to a 64-core environment, within a single OS instance, we'll support up to 64 cores," said Colin Lacey, a Unisys marketing vice president."

    Gads, who on earth would run a 64-core Windows box? Unless they want to virtualize out multiple servers on one bit of hardware. Most of the "heavy lifting" I've seen on servers with mucho processor cores are running some flavor of Unix. I'm kinda surprised this hasn't been fixed already given the momentum of multi-core processors.

    Cheers,

    1. Re:With a catch.... by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Windows optimizes for the low core case. I believe they use a bit field to keep track of the cores, so the 32 bit flavors of Windows are limited to 32 cores, while the 64 bit versions are limited to 64 cores. There may be a high end server SKU that bypasses that limitation, but I don't know of it.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:With a catch.... by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Funny

      64 cores should be enough for anybody.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  9. Re:Monolithic? by Cygfrydd · · Score: 3, Funny

    My god... it’s full of stars...

  10. Now you can open six tabs in Chrome... by javilon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... and each one will have it's own processor core.

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  11. And how will you power it build your own nuclear p by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    And how will you power it build your own nuclear power plant?

  12. That's already the case. by DrYak · · Score: 5, Informative

    6 = 8 - 2 broken cores ?

    You joke but that's already the case with PS3's Cell (7 SPU = 8 - 1 broken), with tripple core Phenom (3 = 4 - 1 broken), and with a very high number of graphic cards (The range segment {pro/mid/low-cost} on which a GPU is used = the number of functional cores they managed to salvage)

    A separate reason may be the number of {quickpath/hypertransport/etc.} interconnects (6 cores require 15 interconnect to communicate, 8 cores require 28 interconnects). 6 to 8 cores isn't such a big increase but keeps the number of inter connect reasonnable.
    (Other processors types like Tilera end up only interconnecting adjacing cores on their 64x chips and you have a strongly *Non*-Uniform Architecture, with not all core able to reach and talk to others at the same speed)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:That's already the case. by jkenneth24 · · Score: 4, Informative

      i dont think this uses Quick Path Interconnects yet... the article stated this was still Penryn. Theres also a bit at the end where the articles stated AMD chiming in and saying "Intel has taken the old front-side bus architecture and added 6 cores to it,"

  13. I Want by WED+Fan · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm holding out for a 12 core processor.

    I'm also holding out for a razor blade with 6 blades, screw those wimpy 5 blade razors that Tiger is pitching right now. (F*ck, I have a beard, why do I want a razor blade? Screw it, I'm still waiting for 6 blades.)

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  14. Yay, more cycles we can't utilize by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Until Intel unveils their version of HyperTransport, this will be more of the same.

    You put a quad-core Xeon against a quad-core Opteron and under most conditions (besides CPU-only work) the Opteron will kill the Xeon.

    Now, we'll have even more cycles we can't utilize, because of the old design of the system.

    If you're going to do anything that uses both RAM and CPU (aka VMware hosts, which is what most big servers are used for these days) you'd better off with an Opteron.

    I'd rather use a dual or quad socket Dual-Core Opteron than a dual or quad socket Quad-core Xeon.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    1. Re:Yay, more cycles we can't utilize by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the article it's pretty clear this is a legacy-at-launch part to be a last upgrade for people using the current FSB technology. Other products will use QuickPath, but this is for those who want to keep their current motherboards for one more generation of processors.

  15. Re: "yes, triple core do exist" by mr_mischief · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's no different from the 486SXes, many of which were 486DX parts with the defective math coprocessor diked out. It's not very different from how the clock rate on every mainstream chip is determined by how many chips turn out to be stable at which speeds.

  16. Anyone doing heavy-duty OCR would by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gads, who on earth would run a 64-core Windows box?

    The ABBYY OCR engine (Windows only) in any of its latest versions (either direct from ABBYY or OEM'd into someone else's product) will multithread during recognition -- one thread for each core. We currently use a dual quad-core Xeon Windows Server box and I wish I had more cores -- when you get a project to OCR 2.1 million docs in a timeframe of less than a few years, you will too. ;-)

    ABBYY's own server-level product (Recognition Server) will span multiple boxes and use any designated cores available on those boxes -- and it scales linerally with the number of cores available (distributed or local). So yeah, there are still some Windows-only applications where a truly monster box would be great.

    OCR is one of those apps where you can absolutely NEVER have enough resources for big jobs.

  17. Re: "yes, triple core do exist" by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's wrong with that. Intel has sold defective processors for years, either binning them at a lower clock speed or trimming out chunks of cache and selling them as Celerons. If it can serve a purpose, does the job you need to get done, and it's available cheap... I don't see a problem here.