Intel to Ship 8-Core Server Processors Later this Fall
Posted 05/27/09 at 09:57:37 AM by Paul Lilly
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
From a business perspective,
Submitted by DJSPIN80 on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 9:59am
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
It does make sense
Submitted by Th3MadScientist on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 8:42am
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.
The comments below were
Submitted by Defiant on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 9:57am
The comments below were regarding hyper threading, not physical cores... If thats what you were referring to
It's nice, but can it run
Submitted by linux_dork on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 8:05am
It's nice, but can it run Crysis? Heh heh.
Hyper-Threading
Submitted by Caboose on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 7:33am
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! =-
Not quite, the cores
Submitted by DJSPIN80 on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 9:57am
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.
It doesn't work like that,
Submitted by Defiant on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 7:40am
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.
Ah, Defiant, don't forget
Submitted by Denis63 on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 8:48am
Ah, Defiant, don't forget about the Atoms! They have HT too! -Denis
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






