Quantcast

Don't have an account? Register Now! Forgot password?

Maximum IT
News

Intel to Ship 8-Core Server Processors Later this Fall

comment Commentsprint Printemail EmailDeliciousDiggStumbleUponRedditFacebookSlashdot

Intel this week said its Nehalem-EX processor, an 8-core beast of a chip, will go into production sometime later this year and start shipping in server systems by early 2010. Even better, each chip supports 16 threads, says Boy Davis, Intel's GM of the Server Platforms Marketing Group.

Already on-board is IBM, who is already developing a server based around Nehalem-EX. The server will hold eight processors, making use of 64 Nehalem-EX cores capable of handling 128 threads.

"We're very excited today to be the first to demonstrate Nehalem-EX," said Alex Yost, VP IBM BladeCenter.

In addition to more cores and threads, Nehalem-EX also ups the memory ante, doubling the capacity with up to 16 memory slots per processor socket.

Image Credit: Intel

COMMENTS
avatarFrom a business perspective,

From a business perspective, I can virtualize the crap out of my servers and utilize fewer hardware.  I could also utilize this for processing large chunks of data - though, on the other hand, I'm probably more keen to use nVidia's CUDA technology instead.  But this will make a great server none-the-less, wish I could afford one for my home. :P

Login or register to post comments
avatarIt does make sense

People clueless to the server market will obviously say it is pointless to have more cores because applications are not coded for multiple cores...please educate yourself

These server are not meant to run single threaded applications, they are going to be used for virtualization using VMWare ESXi or VSphere where entire servers will be virtualized and paritioned using the servers bare metal resources. Standalone servers can then be decomissioned and save the company on cooling and energy costs. 

You are able to host all the server of a small company on one of these servers when virtualized.

Login or register to post comments
avatarThe comments below were

The comments below were regarding hyper threading, not physical cores... If thats what you were referring to

Login or register to post comments
avatarHyper-Threading

 You know, I honestly don't know why Intel keeps using Hyper-Threading. IMO it's pointless. Lets take a CPU, and cut it's processing power in half so that it can run 2 threads at the same time, that way we can have2 things run half as fast!

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

Login or register to post comments
avatarNot quite, the cores

Not quite, the cores themselves are running at x.xx Ghz, Hyperthreading doesn't half the processing power, all it does is allow the core to run two threads simultaneously.  Hyperthreading (a.k.a., SMT or Symmetrical Multi-Threading) requires that software be SMT aware - so there are some drawbacks, but Windows is SMT aware.

Login or register to post comments
avatarIt doesn't work like that,

It doesn't work like that, when something is using your processor core it isn't using all the parts of it, so hyper threading allows another thread to use those unused parts at the same time.  It sucked on the pentium 4s, but its awesome on my core i7 920, its a good technology now.  I can agree with you now though when we are getting into 8+ cores it is just pointless becuase there are enough physical cores.

Login or register to post comments
avatarAh, Defiant, don't forget

Ah, Defiant, don't forget about the Atoms! They have HT too!       -Denis

Login or register to post comments

This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works