Apparantly, they have had enough with all this powerful processor stuff, and instead are going to work on making really small, really cheap, 1ghz processors, so you can put tons of these little processors in the slot where previously only 1 processor could fit.
I don't really see the point in this because of course the price of a 3.8 ghz northwood would probably be the same as 4 of these 1 ghz processors. Also, to handle a job together, they will have to split the task up into lots of little bits - and I seriously doubt that this is possible.
Unless you like to run 8 programs at once, I don't ever see this as being an advantage at all. More like a backward step for those of us who like to run one big program and have it all go in the processor and out again as a single task.
I am loathed to say it, but it looks like I'm going to have to go for AMD if I need some real computing power say 2 to 5 years down the line.
Cluster computing is faster than a single processor on a single computer. Supercomputers use multiple processors to achieve blinding speed.
If you had a 3 1 GHZ processors, you could have three independent decisions and one action.
If all you want to do is number crunch reality (super fast processing of information) then 16,32,128 or 256 1 GHZ processors on a single plug-in card or on the motherboard die could create some very realistic applications like human intellegence, realistic raytraced games, super fast applications. Using brute force computer processing with 256 1ghz processors on a single chip/mobo in a single PC would be awesome.
Is it not a feat sublime? Intellect hath conquered time.
Is it actually possible to split a memory process' tasks between multiple processors on a windows machine though?
If it is, and what you say is true, then this is very good news indeed. With expanded surface hard drives on the horizon, the advent of 1ghz memory, and various other progress in the world of computing, this will make supercomputing a household ability. (well, almost)
I doubt if it would be on windows operating software. I think the software in general will have designated processors to go to.
1. single cpu systems are going to become obsolete. If you use an innovative chip design in theory you could parellel process in the processor. If you could nanoscale 1 GHZ processors, and reduce the size by a factor of 8,16,32, You could have 32 times the processing power in the same 1 GHZ slot.Originally Posted by Reverand
2. The internet is a supercomputer, not in the classic sense of a supercomputer, but combined resources on a global scale is "supercomputation" and by linking millions of computers together you get a "net" effect.
3. We know how to raytrace photorealistic images, now we need the hardware to process information much faster. If you can upgrade your 1 Ghz box and get x32 times a faster processor, using the same hardware, productivity would increase X32 times per pc.
I would love to see a processor motherboard design of four CPU slots with 256 1Ghz processors per slot in a single machine for about $1,000 dollars, and $250 to $500 dollars per additional processor.
My guess is that the 256 1 GHZ processor design would have to have memory on the processor die, in the processor to hold the operations of billions of flops. since the processor would be a single processor from the outside, but // process in the cpu, the result would be awesome performance. 4 chips (256 * 1ghz ) =1,024 times faster than a single 1GHz chip.
1. Motherboards that have 4 chip processor designs exist.
2. Nanotechnologies could be applied to allow the known 1Ghz chip design to be nanosized down.
It would be awesome if it could be done.
Is it not a feat sublime? Intellect hath conquered time.
I can see a day now when the need for memory is nonexistant, and all the processes spend all their time in the processor chipset. By the sound of this new technology, that may not be too far off.
If intel could make 2 ghz chips, of which you could fit around 10 in a single standard CPU slot, then that would be awesome. 20ghz of processing power certainly beats 3.8ghz!
And like I was saying, with terrabyte hard drive technology on the horizon, this will be one step closer to the perfect computer.
Greed and money.
4 computers at 1 GHZ is better than 1 machine at 4 GHZ.
If PC's were designed to allow for 10 processor cores per PC, manufacturers would sell 9 less pc's. The power to have 10 processor slots on a single mother or daughterboard would create raw computational power to do very interesting computations that could mean photorealistic VR, accurate speech recogition and (perhaps) smart agents that do work, provided the software exists.
It is a no-brainer that in the future a single pc will be able to have cluster power. Chip prices fall all of the time.
If there was an innovative motherboard design that had 10 processor cores and ran windows, I would want to buy one.
Is it not a feat sublime? Intellect hath conquered time.
They are also working on a dual core chip, which is simular to the multiprocessor idea.
I believe Windows 2000 and 2003 servers utilize the advantages of MPS.
There are many motherboards that offer mulitple Intel processors. They can be expensive though. You could check out IBM to get an idea on how much a server would cost.
jaded by your desire, you were so pure
lived to please, always a beautiful smile
look into my eyes, imagine peace, happy
warm touch, we are drowning together
I remember when 20mhz copmuiters were being marketed as a great improvement.
Software drives use of computers. Chips are meaningless if the software can not use the new processor designs.
Hyperthreading may make for multiprocessor designs work better under windows. It will be some years before the multiprocessor design is standard on every home PC. It takes a billion dollars to create a chip fab factory. Any radical chip design will take many years to mainstream.
Sad, it would be cool to have 20 cpu's in a single box.
Is it not a feat sublime? Intellect hath conquered time.
Distributed Computing not multiple processing is the future.
At least in business for firms "renting" processor cycles wil be the future.
Cause it will be easier for them to "rent" cpu cycles than build their own supercomputer.
Applications will drive the design of faster computers. It is cheaper to rent cpu cycles on a million pc's for cancer, drug or materials research. Supercomputing on each desk or in each robot will create (hopefully) pc's that can parse human speech and carry out complex intelectual tasks.
In 10 years we will have all the computers we have today, plus 10 more years of hardware to work with.
Is it not a feat sublime? Intellect hath conquered time.
I remember when pentium processors came out.. And people said it couldnt do the basic math problem or some sort of thing they claimed it was doing right. I remember seeing a nice 486 33 dx computer for 1200 dollars.
I keep a 1 year old office server unit here in my study. Pretty beefy machine, my friend asked me to save it so he could take it in and do all his unix/linux niknaks on it.
Anyways, the thing has several processors in it, quite a lot of ram, and a considerable number of entry level ATA hard drives. It's excessive even by my overclocking standards. My 3.8ghz Northwood will run pretty much everything at blindingly fast speed, so this thing is most definately for heavy duty bulk file handling.
Just imagine that one day your common household computer may make this total beast of a machine look like a spectrum! It would turn the industry on its head!
speaking of overclocking the new chips they are makeing are locked
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040619/
http://img43.photobucket.com/albums/...P/Moglogo1.gif
:) find release from your cares, have a good time :)
Yuck, they're using SDRAM. They should use RDRAM, purely because it's 8 times faster. I can't beleive they'd go to all this effort and then go cheap on the ram. Intel said they were going to license RDRAM for their motherboards and they haven't. Le bastarde.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks