madison
Home / News & Blogs

Intel demos 48-core chip

Stephen Shankland CNET News | December 2, 2009 12:32 PM PST

Summary

Pushing several steps farther in the multicore direction, Intel on demonstrated a fully programmable 48-core processor it thinks will pave the way for massive data computers powerful enough to do more of what humans can.

Topics

Multi-core, Intel Corp., Chip, Processors, Semiconductors, Hardware, Components, Intel, chips, CPU, Stephen Shankland CNET News
SAN FRANCISCO--Pushing several steps farther in the multicore direction, Intel on Wednesday demonstrated a fully programmable 48-core processor it thinks will pave the way for massive data computers powerful enough to do more of what humans can.

The 1.3-billion transistor processor, called Single-chip Cloud Computer (SCC) is successor generation to the 80-core "Polaris" processor that Intel's Tera-scale research project produced in 2007. Unlike that precursor, though, the second-generation model is able to run the standard software of Intel's x86 chips such as its Pentium and Core models.

The cores themselves aren't terribly powerful--more like lower-end Atom processors than Intel's flagship Nehalem models, Intel Chief Technology Officer Justin Rattner said at a press event here. But collectively they pack a lot of power, he said, and Intel has ambitious goals in mind for the overall project.

"The machine will be capable of understanding the world around them much as humans do," Rattner said. "They will see and hear and probably speak and do a number of other things that resemble human-like capabilities, and will demand as a result very (powerful) computing capability."

For more, read "Intel hopes 48-core chip will solve new challenges" from CNET News.

Talkback Most Recent of 14 Talkback(s)

  • If we can get more applications to use them . . .
    Cool, but it turns out not all applications will be able to use all cores. The only things that can really use them are entertainment applications and heavy duty scientific applications.

    . . . and in those spaces, nVidia and ATI take the prize for already having 200+ cores.

    . . . and being able to do human like things is simply out of the question until we can figure out how humans do human like things wink.

    Time has shown again and again that simply throwing more power at something is not the same as making it think like a human.

    Supercomputers have huge amounts of power - far more than a 48 core consumer size CPU. But I don't see them doing those things.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CobraA1
    2nd Dec 2009
  • Not to worry - Office 2010 is around the corner (nt)
    (nt)
    ZDNet Gravatar
    croberts
    2nd Dec 2009
  • What's it going to do? Crash 48 times faster? nt
    nt
    ZDNet Gravatar
    T1Oracle
    2nd Dec 2009
  • Servers can use 1000x's of cores easy. nt
    nt
    ZDNet Gravatar
    T1Oracle
    2nd Dec 2009
  • Totally agree - but more cores will still help us
    We have very little understanding of how we do things, so there is no way we can tell a machine to duplicate what we do. Until we can break what we do into low-level, step-by-step instructions, we can't tell a machine how to duplicate it. That's always been the sticking point.

    BUT - having a massive number of cores WILL help us once we truly understand how we function. So the work does need to be done to get us there. In this respect, this is exciting news. Although, as you pointed out, the GPU companies are much better at adding more cores than Intel. happy To truly get to full emulation of human function, we will need a large number of specialized processors geared toward specific tasks, which all communicate.

    Eventually, people will realize that our brain is a massively parallel device which uses message passing (nerve impulses) between a vast number of specialized subsystems which operate relatively independently from one another despite their close proximity to one another.

    Brain function alone will probably require hundreds (if not thousands) of specialized, multi-threaded programs, each running on multiple cores and passing messages to other systems. Add in numerous subsystems for each of the senses, and a bunch more for motor control, and suddenly we're looking at a house-sized device with another house powering it. That's the real reason why we need to pack many more cores onto single chips if we want to recreate what humans do. It's really all about space and power constraints in the end.

    When you think about it, humans are amazing devices. We're relatively compact, powered by chemical fusion, temperature-regulated, fully articulated, mobile, and self-aware. That's a lot to pack into a device the size of even the biggest of us.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    BillDem
    3rd Dec 2009
  • 200 cores? not!
    CobraA1, your example of 200+ cores from ATI/nVidia is incorrect. Their products have 200 "Stream" paths or "Cores", which are not the same as the CISC cores of a pure CPU. The video "cores" are limited instruction data manipulation paths that have very limited ability to handle all data types. The more complex the data gets, the lower the output of these GPU chips goes, expodentially. Calculate what they can do and they do wonders. But they don't work with everything. I'm amazed at why people don't understand that simple concept.

    Now, a 48 core general CPU, if used properly can do everything, and do it powerfully. But it will never be able to do single purpose tasks that a single purpose process will be able to do. DUH!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Narg
    3rd Dec 2009
  • RE: Intel demos 48-core chip
    And here's me, thinking that 4-core is the bees knees happy
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ampers@...
    3rd Dec 2009
  • 48 atom cores?
    Might be as fast as my Core2 Quad.

    really does anyone own a netbook? They're
    hatefully slow.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    shaunehunter
    3rd Dec 2009
  • Behaving human?
    Will be able to speak?

    ... so it's just another one to telling me bulls***
    ZDNet Gravatar
    arcebus@...
    3rd Dec 2009
  • OOOOH....
    So this critter could be put in a Mac, for example.

    Apple has been using more than one chip in their desktops for a while.

    They could use one regular Intel chip for housekeeping, and add this 48
    core chip for tasks like facial recognition, voice command recognition,
    and other massively parallel tasks.

    ZDNet Gravatar
    Jkirk3279
    3rd Dec 2009
  • If it was put into a Mac...
    ...Apple would have an excuse to charge 10x the
    cost of a similar-spec PC, versus only twice.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jedidethfreak
    3rd Dec 2009
  • Not for desktop,.... yet....
    This is on the testing edge of computing so far guys, so cool your guns.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Narg
    3rd Dec 2009
  • power efficiency
    I've been waiting for this announcement ever since Intel started shipping Atoms. What you may get is a 48 core chip that takes 200 watts. Now we're talking!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mswift@...
    3rd Dec 2009
  • multicore valences
    So, if we put a bunch of Atoms together, is that a Molecule?
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rcasey101
    3rd Dec 2009

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity