Intel Puffs Chest, Talks Feasibility of a 1,000 Core Processor
Let's get a few things straight -- there aren't any 1,000 processors on the horizon, there's no such chip on Intel's processor roadmap, and we've yet to really tap into the computing power of today's multi-core architectures. Got it? Great, let's move on.
Despite the above disclaimers, Intel engineer Timothy Mattson was more than willing to sit and talk with ZDNet about what it would take to build such a monstrous CPU. Here's some of what he had to say:
"The challenge this presents to those of us in parallel computing at Intel is, if our fabs could build a 1,000-core chip, do we have an architecture in hand that could scale that far? And if built, could that chip be effectively programmed?
"The architecture used on the 48-core chip could indeed fit that bill. I say that since we don't have cache coherency overhead. Message-passing applications tend to scale at worst as the diameter of the network, which runs roughly as the square root of the number of nodes on the network. So I can say with confidence we could scale the architecture used on the SCC to 1,000 cores."
Mattson went on to say that as far as programming goes, that too is feasible "as a cluster on a chip using a message-passing API."
Read more of what he had to say here.

Image Credit: Intel
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
Galdorf
December 28, 2010 at 2:03pm
This has been done by other chip mfg/researchers already source story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342100/Scientists-unveil-1-000-core-chip-make-desktop-machines-20-times-faster.html#ixzz19QV99zgc
![]()
DJSPIN80
December 28, 2010 at 7:48am
1,000 cores seem so excessive, it's ridiculous.
x86 needs to go and more RISC architectures need to take its place. Even with the combined CISC/RISC implementations of modern x86 chips, there are simply not enough registers on the CPU itself. Widening the ISA would definitely help and allowing for more 'mixed' architectures would benefit as well.
BTW, this isn't the same as a GPU. GPU's are generally vector processors, they're not general processors. GPU's are good when you're applying large calculations on data (i.e., 3D or financial calculations) because they tend to follow the SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) principle. GPU's excel at it because their architecture is simple enough that they don't have to account for too much branching, hence they can do 1,000 cores on a single die because each core is really not all that complex.
Anyways, a widened ISA will help. However, programmers need to get in on the act too (speaking as a software engineer, myself). There's really not a whole lot of applications right now that require large scale computing on any level. However, what this can help with is innovating rich UI experiences; so UI's that are functional and friendly.
![]()
fellowleo
December 27, 2010 at 6:22pm
This is pretty much what a supercomputer does. How many of us really need one? As for the industries that do need one, they have enough trouble feeding power and cooling the massive servers that are out there now. Does this guy has any concept how much power and in turn cooling something like this is going to need?
![]()
johnnyathm1
December 28, 2010 at 12:45am
"Engineer" being the key word here...you can bet he does. Silly question. All he was saying is that it is feasible. Did you even read the article...lol!
![]()
someuid
December 27, 2010 at 3:52pm
"Message-passing applications tend to scale at worst as the diameter of the network, which runs roughly as the square root of the number of nodes on the network."
Anyone have any idea what that means?
![]()
quickone
December 27, 2010 at 2:03pm
1000 cores? Isn't that called a GPU? And people were talking about 6Ghz CPUs back in the P4 days, and it turned out that wasn't the way to go so they moved onto cores. Now we're talking about super high number of cores instead of clocks, I have a felling in 5 years they'll realize that isn't the right path either....
![]()
994196003
December 27, 2010 at 11:46am
1000 cores? thats something i would put in my grandmas computer. Come on!
![]()
Walnut
December 27, 2010 at 11:20am
1000 cores seems useless when no one can figure out how to make good use out of 4. Higher efficiency and higher clock speed is what we need right now. More cores has been a cop out for the better part of a decade. Come on, Intel.
Also, @MaxPC Staff: the new spam filter seems to work pretty well but this comment form still locks up my tab in Chrome. And spellcheck doesn't work. Neither does right-click. I'm getting most of these problems in FF, too.
![]()
the_river
December 27, 2010 at 10:57am
The dawn....it's all over...especially if they make another movie!!
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.


















