Intel Launching Six-Core CPU This year, Overkill?

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/87005/intel-launching-six-core-cpus-this-year

Just read this now

The six-core chip is code-named Dunnington and will be built using the same 45nm process that Intel is using for its just-released Penryn-class chips. Another key feature is the chip's large level of level 3 (or L3) cache, 16MB, which is one of the memory buffers between the processor and RAM that are used to speed the overall performance of the chip


Overkill? or awesomeness?

Anyone know what socket it will use?

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=230847

 

Well.. As with Quad's its basically useless until they have single app's which support it. Until then, you will just get increased speed while multi tasking.

 

Did Intel delay their 8 core processor? Or do they just not feel the need to release it yet?

 

It is not overkill if you can utilize the power that any CPU can offer; and the only reason we can't use it is because software is still moving to being optimized for multiple cores. Considering that applications and operating systems are becoming more demanding (as always), and that silicone technology is reaching the envolope in terms of clock speed, the only real way to increase perfomance now is to increase the number of cores.

 

I read somewhere that Nehalem technology is supposedly supposed to negate this notion.

 

Yeah, I saw it in the video posted by a member here. The video stated that Intel is going to increase the number of thread processed per core instead of increasing the amount of cores to increase the performance.

 

The only reason anyone would need 6-cores is probably just to boast and show off. Not saying it won't be standard in another two years, because then we might actually see an advantage. As of now there isn't any program that needs that. Quad core is overkill, 6 cores is just insane. But at some time in the future, we will all need it for COD6 and Crysis 3, etc.

Maybe it will find the end of Pi? LOL

 

Currently, for normal consumers, that many cores is overkill. However, for a casual business user, 6 or even 8 cores would be useful. Of course, there are many major businesses already that equip their staff with 2xQuadcore Xeon workstations (effectively 8 cores), and they have servers which run 12-80 core Intel Itaniums or something.

I personally cannot wait for a laptop to come out with a Quadcore CPU (preferably one by Apple). I'd be able to run those VMs I need to run side by side and take them with me wherever I go.

 

Until software becomes multi-threaded, anything more then a dual or quadcore will be overkill.

I wonder how much of an increase in performance we'd see in say multi-threaded MS Office or Photoshop or something like that. Or even everyday apps.

 

Could you imagine...the processors could work so fast that the only thing holding back your calculation of final pi-digits would be the refresh rate of your dang monitor, lmao!

 

6 core dunnington is for MP platform where with caneland platform it would be a 24 core system. That is high end servers where any amount of processing power is not too much.

 

Sun's been doing this for a few years now with their Niagara and UltraSparc VI CPUs. Currently, they are at 8 cores/8 threads with current generation Niagara's.

It's kick ass for web and application servers, and depending on context some DB servers.

 

Different needs for different "high end servers". It's all about the balance. App Servers tend to run out of CPU more so than all but the highest of high-end DBs.

THere are special purpose systems for serious crunching (think weather modeling, code breaking, graphical rendering) that are beyond even that; but many of these jobs can now be carved up with parallel systems doing a piece of the work.

 

Surely the main application for this will be servers?

 

IF a program is built to engage multiple cores, I could see some serious gains with video processing for both still and moving images.

Cheers,

 

Software has to be programmed to specifically take advantage of each core, so as it stands now it is overkill, but that will change eventually.

 

Most software does not need to be multi-threaded. you don´t need a multi-threaded web browser for instance. the software that really need a lot of processing power is mostly multithreaded already. Rendering programs already support these features.

Whats needed most is a more intelligent Os that knows what program needs how many cores. Imagine you are in production process and you are running an animation software and a renderer simultaneously, and you are preparing some images in photoshop while rendering, or already start cutting your film in premiere.
right now the windows os lets you decide what application will be run by which core. the downside is that you will have to do all that manually all the time. Would be nice to have some intelligent background service checking what applications need the most cpu power and assigns the cores in that way that all programs can be run with max speed, but without lagging.

in the production example with 6 cores that would mean you are probably using 1 core for the os, 3 for the renderer, 1 for the animation software,and 1 for photoshop or premiere. i would really like to see that, since it is a real pain to do that manually.

i hope you MS guys do this right

 

Hopefully Windows 7 will have FULL multi-core support; when I say full I mean even including what schoko said.

Along with more multi-threaded apps that can take advantage of the power that multi-core CPUs can deliver.

 

Overkill?

I'm waiting for Core 8 Octo.

 

I think Beckton(Nehalem Oct Core) will only be for MP systems just like Dunnington.

Westmere(nehalem 32nm shrink) will introduce native 6-core version. You might see it in desktops.

 

If I had six cores on me right now:

I would be 2-3 pass encoding video, firefox with 15 tabs open, dvd authoring program open, 5 windows folder open, photoshop open, miranda im open, winamp playing. Hopefully the video will be done encoding in 30mins.

 

Not to mention Folding@Home.