Intel presentation reveals the future of the CPU-GPU war

After a fairly standard review of CPU development over the last thirty years, a serpent is detected in the CPU boys' garden of eden, threatening their supremacy.

"CPU profit margins are decreasing. GPU margins are increasing." As the old saying goes, "Follow the money!" and you'll rarely be lead astray.

But where has this serpent come from?

It's probably due to the idea that a single computer may go through a handfull of GPU upgrades before it's completely replaced. I know that on my last system, I went through about two GPU's before I upgraded the entire system. Just an idea, of course. Could be wrong about that. @:^)

Brings up a crazy idea though: Why can't BOINC projects (ie. Rosetta@home) use up any of the GPU's power? I leave my computer running 24/7, only use it for a handfull of hours a day for gooffing off, so there's that little chunk of resource that's not being used.

Intel presentation reveals the future of the CPU-GPU war

After a fairly standard review of CPU development over the last thirty years, a serpent is detected in the CPU boys' garden of eden, threatening their supremacy.

"CPU profit margins are decreasing. GPU margins are increasing." As the old saying goes, "Follow the money!" and you'll rarely be lead astray.

But where has this serpent come from?

---

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070416comp_b.htm

Lots of news out from Intel today from their Intel Developer Forum... At the bottom of the above article is about STACKING MEMORY ON TOP OF THEIR 80-CORE RESEARCH CHIP. Wow, Intel and IBM are making advances at the same time. Next step for the 80-core, 1-teraflop chip would put memory (RAM) on top of each core?

---

Slightly OT, but... Go Rosetta!!!

Intel says new chips about 40 pct faster

Intel Corp. said a new line of computer processors due out later this year will be about 40 percent faster than current chips when running computer games, videos and other heavy workloads.

"In high-performance computing and bandwidth intensive applications ... there will be up to a whopping 45 percent performance increase," said Patrick Gelsinger, the general manager for Intel's digital enterprise group.

In a prototype Penryn chip with four processing cores, that translated into 40 percent faster performance in computer games and video processing, while more mundane tasks such as image processing ran about 15 percent faster, Gelsinger said.

The successor to Penryn, a family of chips known as Nehalem, will make their debut in 2008 with an overhauled design and featuring up to eight processing cores, double that of current top-of-the-line chips, he said.

Slightly OT, but... Go Rosetta!!!

Intel says new chips about 40 pct faster

Intel Corp. said a new line of computer processors due out later this year will be about 40 percent faster than current chips when running computer games, videos and other heavy workloads.

"In high-performance computing and bandwidth intensive applications ... there will be up to a whopping 45 percent performance increase," said Patrick Gelsinger, the general manager for Intel's digital enterprise group.

In a prototype Penryn chip with four processing cores, that translated into 40 percent faster performance in computer games and video processing, while more mundane tasks such as image processing ran about 15 percent faster, Gelsinger said.

The successor to Penryn, a family of chips known as Nehalem, will make their debut in 2008 with an overhauled design and featuring up to eight processing cores, double that of current top-of-the-line chips, he said.

So should I upgrade next year, or wait until 2009 when the multi-cores will be much more than eight-core processors. Ughhhh!

---

(Click for detailed stats)

And whats wrong with both, lol...

So should I upgrade next year, or wait until 2009 when the multi-cores will be much more than eight-core processors. Ughhhh!

So should I upgrade next year, or wait until 2009 when the multi-cores will be much more than eight-core processors. Ughhhh!

Depends on your needings, I would say ;) 2009 is faaar away.
And also what system you are running atm. I find the dualcore AMDs very attractive atm, due to their prize drops *sry AMD fanboy* :D

But Im still fine with my single core CPUs, cuz the main subject I need my PC for is gaming. And yet multiplecore CPUs dont really show an advantage there, so im not in troubles. That tiny bit of Video&Graphics editing I do once in a while is no reason for me to get a dualcore yet. But applications like rosetta will benefit heavily from the growing numbers of multicores, not a bad thing :)

Quad-Core Processors to Go Mainstream by 2009

By the end of 2009, today's high-end quad-core processors will eventually appear in close to half of all mainstream desktop systems, according to new data released by market research firm iSuppli on Tuesday.

iSuppli says that while no mainstream desktop PCs will ship with quad-core microprocessors in the first half of 2007, quad-core penetration in mainstream desktop PCs will rise to 5 percent by the third quarter of 2007, and then to 7 percent by the fourth quarter.


In fact, that penetration will continue to increase in the following months, according to the firm, hitting 18 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, and then rocketing to nearly half of the market (49 percent) in the fourth quarter of 2009.

The research firm also said that while the desktop market will be rapidly adopting quad-core technology, the notebook segment is not expected to move at the same pace. iSuppli said that it doesn't expect any penetration of quad-core microprocessors in mainstream notebooks until at least the first quarter of 2009. Even then, that penetration will only account for 4 percent of systems. By the fourth quarter of that year, quad-core processors will be in 11 percent of all mainstream notebook PCs shipped.

But applications like rosetta will benefit heavily from the growing numbers of multicores, not a bad thing :)

I would imagine that in about five years from now (or more), whenever GPU's reach whatever limit they're going to reach, that they would incorporate the GPU and the CPU in the same package (why waste realestate when you don't have to?). I can honestly see a huge opportunity for more hybrid chips in the future as things develope. Now, if they can get the north and south bridge in with this giant conglomerate of a chip, we'd be rockin'. @:^)

<sigh> Ah, the fantasies I could conjur up with if given enough time.

---

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

System-on-a-Chip

R600 combines graphics with audio and physics process in a whole another way, and those 64 vect5D shader pipelines yield in 320 scalar units total, directly comparable to Nvidia's 128 scalar ones. Now, 128 scalar units at 1.35 GHz is still a tad more efficient that ATi's own 320 at 740 MHz, but ATi's pipeline is more complex than it was previously thought.

<sigh> Ah, the fantasies I could conjur up with if given enough time.

Quad-Core Processors to Go Mainstream by 2009

By the end of 2009, today's high-end quad-core processors will eventually appear in close to half of all mainstream desktop systems, according to new data released by market research firm iSuppli on Tuesday.

[snip]

But applications like rosetta will benefit heavily from the growing numbers of multicores, not a bad thing :)

For awhile now I've wondered when the chip makers will eventually hit the performance/sale wall for the home or small business PC. In other words, when will the chips become so powerful that it will become a waste to market more powerful chips to this market, since the added power will become a non-issue? I wonder if the quad-core chips might just hit that performance wall; it seems to be pretty difficult to ask too much from even a dual-core nowadays. Other than video editing, few need the extra power these days. Any thoughts on this?

---

(Click for detailed stats)

Gerry, just to assure I understand the question, are you proposing that a quad core is all the processing a home user could ever want?? That sounds a lot like the famous statement from IBM that the world only needs about 9 computers, and from Microsoft that users will never need more then a 64K machine.

I'm picturing the electronic house, where everything that is plugged in to an electrical outlet is controlled by my PC. Lights, furnace, TV (and scheduled recording thereof), digital music (wireless speakers throughout home), digital video playback (from my future 2TB disk drive), intercom system, multiple active digital phone calls (TCP based), monitoring my car for maintenance requirements, security alarm system, smoke detectors, microwave scheduled start time, number of open windows in the house, outdoor video survalence... oh! and I crunch Rosetta too!

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Purely out of curiosity. How much would an 80 core cost?

---

Would imagine that it would be about 40 times more than what a dual core would cost. But if there's enough R&D involved, then it could become cheaper. Could be wrong, so don't quote me on that. @:^P

Purely out of curiosity. How much would an 80 core cost?

---

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Would imagine that it would be about 40 times more than what a dual core would cost. But if there's enough R&D involved, then it could become cheaper. Could be wrong, so don't quote me on that. @:^P

Purely out of curiosity. How much would an 80 core cost?

i think it'd probably be quite a lot more than that - as you increase the area, the likelyhood of defects in that silicon increases, so you have more wastage with larger chips. You can allow for defective cores and ignore them, like they do with cache on CPUs where they turn half off if some is defective, and then sell these as bottom-end CPUs such as Celerons, or with the PS3's Cell's where only seven of the eight are used. This allowance means that you're wasting silicon real estate on every chip though and so reduces the yeild...

---

Would imagine that it would be about 40 times more than what a dual core would cost. But if there's enough R&D involved, then it could become cheaper. Could be wrong, so don't quote me on that. @:^P

Purely out of curiosity. How much would an 80 core cost?

i think it'd probably be quite a lot more than that - as you increase the area, the likelyhood of defects in that silicon increases, so you have more wastage with larger chips. You can allow for defective cores and ignore them, like they do with cache on CPUs where they turn half off if some is defective, and then sell these as bottom-end CPUs such as Celerons, or with the PS3's Cell's where only seven of the eight are used. This allowance means that you're wasting silicon real estate on every chip though and so reduces the yeild...

Hey, I said don't quote me. Hehe. Seriously though, that makes sence too. Might add an extra, say, twenty percent or so to offset the "supply & demand" bit for a perfectly working device.

---

There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Well, just thinking about the rapid decline of prices for quad-cores...

If I remeember correctly, in 3Q06 a QC was about $1500, and by Q307 I believe a lower end QC from Intel (very similar to the 3Q06 QC) is expected to be about $250.

~80% price drop? Not bad for about a year.

Hey, I said don't quote me. Hehe. Seriously though, that makes sence too. Might add an extra, say, twenty percent or so to offset the "supply & demand" bit for a perfectly working device.

What happened to Who?
He's so quiet and he isn't crunching almost nothing compared to some weeks ago.

Is everything ok Who?

---

What happened to Who?
He's so quiet and he isn't crunching almost nothing compared to some weeks ago.

Is everything ok Who?

afaik he has been in china on the intel forum, and when he comes back has some holidays and will try to enhance the seti code. quite funny how much one can learn about somebody else's private life over the net.

---

Intel price drops haven't been huge so far, but that just changed. Here's some history for this past week.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31621/137/

---