Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Veltliner · Dec 6, 2009, 03:51 AM

Intel presented it's 48-core processor (24 dual cores) a few days ago.

Close-up of SCC chip image - Intel's 48-core processor debut (photos) - CNET News

I wonder how long the way is from prototype to mass production. And if such a mini-cloud computing unit lacks software that could use its power...

OreoCookie · Dec 6, 2009, 06:13 AM

They've already said that this won't make it into a product. It's just research, a proof of concept for the future. However, in any case, it's good news. This is important research for us and I think Apple's technologies are well-prepared for this.

P · Dec 6, 2009, 07:17 AM

Better than some, but I don't think this trend towards removing OoOE is good for any personal computing platform. We've been hitching a ride on the needs of the HPC crowd and servers, and that might be coming to an end.

mduell · Dec 6, 2009, 06:01 PM

Ok for a webserver or something, but I wouldn't want it on my desk. Video encoding with Atom-grade cores blows.

imitchellg5 · Dec 6, 2009, 07:00 PM

Why would you need 48-core? I can understand a high-demand server, but for a Mac Pro even? Seems like overkill at this point, or at least until serious advancements are made on the OS and application side of things.

P · Dec 7, 2009, 03:24 AM

Does anyone know if there's a max number of cores that OS X can use even theoretically? I know that there have been 24-core prototypes, so I guess that number is at least 32, but does anyone know how high it is?

MarkLT1 · Dec 7, 2009, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Why would you need 48-core? I can understand a high-demand server, but for a Mac Pro even? Seems like overkill at this point, or at least until serious advancements are made on the OS and application side of things.

Two words- academic research. The more cores I can get for my sims, the better. I love having an 8-core machine on my desktop right now- it lets me develop codes for our HPC cluster locally, test them, and run small-scale runs. With 48 cores (or 96 in a dual-chip model) I'd be in heaven.

Then again, I don't have the same needs as a typical user.

olePigeon · Dec 7, 2009, 09:34 AM

Man, Be would be raking in the customers right about now with all this multicore technology.

OreoCookie · Dec 7, 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Why would you need 48-core? I can understand a high-demand server, but for a Mac Pro even? Seems like overkill at this point, or at least until serious advancements are made on the OS and application side of things.

Well, that's the way things are going these days: it has become very hard to improve performance significantly for single cores and much easier to use multiple cores. Plus, in mobile devices, you can save a lot of energy by using specialized coprocessors, e. g. for audio and video en- and decoding or for encryption in hardware.

I don't think this is something the software industry wants to do, it's something it has to do. And in the future, we will see a much broader spectrum starting from devices with many, many small, `slow' cores (that's how you built the fastest super computers today) or with `less' slower cores. It all depends on what you're doing. But I think, overall, it will benefit everybody: when you decouple threads, you will potentially see the spinning beachball of hell less often. Google's Chrome starts a new thread for each tab, I really wonder when Apple adopts this for Safari as well.

Simon · Dec 8, 2009, 04:17 AM

If the current pace keeps up 40+ core CPUs will be the standard in ten years from now.

Veltliner · Dec 9, 2009, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

If the current pace keeps up 40+ core CPUs will be the standard in ten years from now.

Could happen even sooner.

Once the computer industry has set their eyes on a standard, it's getting boosted.

Happened in the times of the gigahertz race.

I guess what will have to happen is a kind of killer application... a way to write software it can take advantage of so many cores. Once this happens, the number of cores will explode.

OreoCookie · Dec 9, 2009, 03:12 AM

I doubt it. The problem is software: most of today's software is ill-equipped to deal with more than two or four cores at the time. Dealing with 40 cores is an entirely different matter: unless you know how to put this power to good use, your computer will actually be slower.

Veltliner · Dec 11, 2009, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I doubt it. The problem is software: most of today's software is ill-equipped to deal with more than two or four cores at the time. Dealing with 40 cores is an entirely different matter: unless you know how to put this power to good use, your computer will actually be slower.

New technology always creates new methods. I'd say we'll see a completely new generation of software emerging. A way of thinking that deals with so many cores that is different from the current, more linear method.

Such changes in patterns of thinking have, in every field, always been very exciting times. Newcomers can break in, and change the landscape.

It looks very much like that this will be the near future, as this is the only way to seriously increase computing power.

The time frame is of course not clear. A new, working idea showing up will create this chain reaction. When it will happen? Maybe it is already, and there's some little programmer that will be the great programmer in a few years and have his own software company.