Print
If you’re a PC hipster who loves his quad core CPU we have bad news for you, Intel has officially declared that multi-core processors have gone mainstream. The announcement was made by Intel’s chief technology officer Justin Rattner, to a captive audience at their annual Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco last week.
According to Rattner the end result of so much excess computing horsepower will be that the future of computing will be accelerated. "Since 2006 Intel and the IA developer community have worked in partnership to realize the potential of multi- and many-core computing, with accelerating impact beyond high-performance computing to solving a wide range of real-world computing problems on clients and servers," Rattner said during his Day 3 keynote. "What we have demonstrated today only scratches the surface of what will be possible with many-core and extreme scale computing systems in the future."
We can only hope that this announcement will prompt developers to take a closer look at software development in the future, and put an even greater emphasis on making them multi-core aware.
Comments are closed on this article
Drew7
September 29, 2011 at 4:40pm
So wait... All of a sudden "quad-core" isn't considered "multi-core"? I just googled "multi-core", and all of the links that I saw stated that "multi-core" is dual-core and up! C'mon, MaximumPC! That's a big slip for you guys! ~Drew
CalDrumr
September 19, 2011 at 12:50pm
That's it, I'm going back to single-core. I can't be seen computing with the masses.
Keith E. Whisman
September 18, 2011 at 9:42pm
I'm really excited by the many core concept, sure it will destroy the fun of overclocking but really CPU's really aren't that important when it comes to gaming but for video editing and stuff like that, a program written to take full advantage of the resources uniquely available from a well equiped many core processor will fly by anything currently available. The concept allows for different cores to run at different clock speeds but have immediate access to the cache and ram and of course compute cores. As I said the possibilities are unimaginible. Things will run so much faster when they are on the die.
Keith E. Whisman
September 18, 2011 at 9:35pm
Now aren't multi core processors defined as having more than one core but they are usually all the same kind of cores?
And aren't many core processors defined as processors that contain different cores for different chores that can start up and shut down as needed and run at their own frequencies?
And aren't the current processors that contain a GPU core and more than one processing core a bastardation of both Multi and Many core philosiphies?
febtiger
September 18, 2011 at 8:21pm
I liked multi-cores before it went mainstream.
That is all.
No seriously, it has been mainstream for a while. Well unless they think multi = more than two.
onisuriyuuu
September 18, 2011 at 7:29pm
well, i still have a AMD x3200 xD 1.8 ghz single core, costed me $1000.......... in 2000?
"If you’re a PC hipster who loves his quad core CPU we have bad news for you," -maximumpc
Nooooooooooooo? I just bought my i5-2500k. If that goes obselete this fast I will surely demand a refund.... lol.
Phrish
September 18, 2011 at 2:41pm
LMAO, happy to know that multi-core processors are mainstream. Thanks for letting me know... seriously, I feel enlightened now.
In the spirit of sharing, I thought I'd also relate a recent revelation I've had. Remember folks, you heard it here first... keyboards are a great way to enter text!
There, don't you feel you learned something today? Welcome to the past, Intel, you look good in my rear view mirror.
warptek2010
September 18, 2011 at 4:22pm
Wow! You also had me as a "CAPTIVE" audience as well as being enlightened... :)
livebriand
September 18, 2011 at 2:19pm
I thought that's been the case for many years now. At this point we really don't need more cpu power, just better software. With a 2 year old system (quad i5 750, 8GB RAM), I can't actually tax the cpu all that much, maybe 40% with VMs and such. About 20% in games. Sure, it hits 100% when rendering video, but that's it. The bottleneck is my gpu and my hard disk. (granted, I have a low-end gpu, but still that matters with games) Granted, on my AMD E350 netbook the cpu IS a bottleneck (100% usage right after login, spikes to 100% when loading a webpage, though just for a moment, noticably a tiny bit slow), but most laptops are faster than that.
jegarst
September 18, 2011 at 11:30am
We as computer users and geeks need to begin to ask some serious questions of all aspects of the computer hardware and software industry.
As a scientist I appreciate that the chip makers and software makers need a direction for new products and I am certainly not opposed to the improvements in multicore technology that will come from such development. That said, one has to query whether the masses would really benefit from a 20 core CPU that can predict the weather or break 20 digit passwords, when e-mail, youtube videos or simple productivity applications afford the majority of uses for such devices? Similarly one must ask about the future of gaming and productivity software that has advanced over ten years from megabyte to gigabyte space requirements and amazingly better graphics, but has simultaneously become so esoteric and eccentric to have lost the joy and simple pleasures of the original game or has become so bogged in complexity and price to have created a market for open gaming or open productivity software.
I'm sure the industry will keep trying and good luck doing so, but the movement toward smart phones and pads and convenience of use make me wonder whether "Dick Tracy style watches" don't make more sense.
nmanguy
September 18, 2011 at 11:08am
I didn't even know that they were still selling anything with a single core except the Atom, and even that has a multi-core variant.
