http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/ Engadget Comments for Intel's new Nehalem-EX CPUs rock servers with eight cores, 16 threads, infinite sex appeal http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 11:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
2) If Apple offered an X-serve variant with Nehalem-EX, it would hardly be to just "increase prices", they would be targeting a completely different segment of the industry... And yes, 4-socket Server chips have always been far more expensive because of the usually better technology and far lower volume than mid-level server chips.]]>May 27th 2009 3:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 7:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/Why is there a core 0 ? ]]>May 27th 2009 8:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 9:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
so I'm betting the new Venus Sparc processor from fujitsu still stomps the living daylights out of this nehalem at 8 cores with 64 simultaneous threads also im betting this isn't gonna use only 45 watts like the venus as a server processor nehalem fails hard

Refs:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/13/fujitsu_venus_sparc64/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/15/fujitsus-supercomputer-ready-venus-cpu-said-to-be-worlds-fast/]]>May 27th 2009 9:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
In C, an array is referenced as []. Arrays aren't too complicated, they're just contiguous blocks of memory that contain multiple values, all right next to each other. The "address" portion will always be the same for any specific array, and the memory location of element you're referencing is computed as:

+ ( * size_of_item )

Now the C compiler knows the type you've given the array, so it takes care of multiplying the by the size of one item. So, to make things simple, let's presume you have an array of 1 byte elements. The address points directly to the first element in the array. So if you want to retrieve that element, you want to retrieve the byte located at . As the equation above makes pretty clear, element number "1" is going to be [ + ( 1 * 1 ) ] == + 1. Not what you're looking for! Element 0, however, fits the bill: [ + ( 0 * 1) ] == .

So oftentimes in programming counting starts at 0, because 0 means "the thing at the reference" and 1 means "the thing 1 unit away from the reference".]]>May 27th 2009 10:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/ would get insta-killed. So I'll just redo this properly - is there a way to delete a prior comment?

I'll use C as an example of this, although I am not making any sort of claims as to the origin or history of "counting from zero" - just giving a practical example that gives some sense to the practice.

In C, an array is referenced as address[offset]. Arrays aren't too complicated, they're just contiguous blocks of memory that contain multiple values, all right next to each other. The "address" portion will always be the same for any specific array, and the memory location of element you're referencing is computed as:

address + ( offset * size_of_item )

Now the C compiler knows the type you've given the array, so it takes care of multiplying the by the size of one item. So, to make things simple, let's presume you have an array of 1 byte elements. The address points directly to the first element in the array. So if you want to retrieve that element, you want to retrieve the byte located at "address". As the equation above makes pretty clear, element number "1" is going to be [address + ( 1 * 1 ) ] == address + 1. Not what you're looking for! Element 0, however, fits the bill: [address + ( 0 * 1) ] == address.

So oftentimes in programming counting starts at 0, because 0 means "the thing at the reference" and 1 means "the thing 1 unit away from the reference".]]>May 27th 2009 10:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 6:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/

"stomp the living daylights out" ? Not quite buddy. Its a great processor, but the Nehalem-EX is a beast. Anyways the "Venus" is really for a different market segment that the Itanium competes in. Not to mention a Venus box will be far more expensive than an equivalent Nehalem-EX. Lets wait for the benchmarks before spilling out the hyperbole..]]>May 28th 2009 5:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/(I'm saying Cell is faster based on the Core i7 Cpu which Cell was much much faster with video editing)

anyway i bet we gonna See these in laptops in 2013 lol and our desktops will have 24 Core or something by that time]]>May 27th 2009 8:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 9:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 10:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/The correct question is : what do we think we need - Nehalem or Atom?
Do we need 8 or 10 cores or even a 100 cores - or do we need to play youtube, check blogs, write emails, pay bills etc..?

Hey, is it because of recession or something else that the automobile industry doesn't do something similar? Imagine a car with 8 engines ! Wow, sounds cool.

]]>May 27th 2009 5:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
But the Cell is more like a vector coprocessor in that it doesn't do general computing tasks well, including managing dozens of separate serial tasks at once, parallel code that is highly interconnected where the cores have to talk to each other constantly or highly branching code. this is exactly what the Nehalem-EX is meant for.

That said, despite not being designed for it, the 8-core 16-thread nehalem with SSE4.2 SIMD should be able to put out some serious parallel floating point numbers.. Perhaps even surpassing the new Cell. All the while able to be a monster as a more general purpose processor for commercial workload servers.]]>May 28th 2009 5:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
You should reintroduce typewriters, paper filing, etc so you can increase the headcount. Full employment FTW!]]>May 27th 2009 8:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
So, in short, who the heck needs this??]]>May 27th 2009 9:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/In a nutshell, server farms, e.g. Google, Amazon, Ebay, Financial Exchanges.]]>May 27th 2009 9:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
It's important to note, however, that not all programs can be broken down into distinct parallel "chunks", and so having more cores doesn't necessarily mean faster- it all depends on the program.

I code medical imaging systems, and one such system services several million MRI, CAT scan, etc studies per year. I run between 30 and 60 threads at any given time; a CPU like this would be killer. ]]>May 27th 2009 9:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
All of them combined are still a small percentage of computer users, but they do very important work (except animators, they're more pretentious than useful).]]>May 27th 2009 10:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
http://www.infoworld.com/t/hardware/microsoft-windows-server-2008-r2-support-256-cpu-cores-750]]>May 27th 2009 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
We've got some Sun Fire T5220s that have 1 processor, 8 cores, 4 threads per core (so 32 threads total). Plenty of server apps are still single-threaded, but if you can run multiple instances of them you're set (think: the way Apache spawns new processes to handle each request).

In Snow Leopard, Apple will be introducing Grand Central, which (they claim) will make all apps multi-core aware. I guess the idea is that it presents a bunch of cores as a single fast processor by breaking up tasks at the OS level, rather than requiring programmers to write apps that are MP-aware.

It will be interesting to see if Grand Central is just kind of a hack that speeds up unaware apps, but not as fast as an app properly written to be multithreaded... or if it actually gives us advantages that simply writing an app for multiple cores does not.]]>May 27th 2009 11:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
(Yeah, okay, some people do, but even so, Windows is a pretty faulty assumption to begin a sentence about a server CPU with.)

Leaving aside platform (and as far as I'm aware Windows doesn't have any limitation on processor cores - once you get beyond one core, handling three or 23 is logically no different), most server applications fall into one of two categories:

a) Use way more threads than you will ever have processors (e.g. 200+)

or

b) Use a tunable number of threads that you can set to match/be appropriate for your processor count.

There are some server applications which might not be able to take full advantage of more than, say, four cores (I kind of just wrote one, actually) but these are relatively rare.

--sam]]>May 27th 2009 12:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
Currently, servers and data crunchers. For the rest of us, programming paradigms and APIs are being refined to support better parallelization. Games are just starting to take advantage of allowing multiple threads, and newer well-written game engines scale almost linearly with the number of cores and threads provided.

Eventually, having twice the number of cores will have about the same performance impact as having twice the clock speed.]]>May 27th 2009 12:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/
So you can have at least four of these chips, even in a Windows box...

]]>May 27th 2009 12:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 28th 2009 5:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 10:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 10:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 28th 2009 9:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 4:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/27/intels-new-nehalem-ex-cpus-rock-servers-with-eight-cores-16-th/May 27th 2009 8:01PM