Six-core Intel Nehalem processors in the works?
By Nilay Patel 
posted June 11th 2009 3:39PM
posted June 11th 2009 3:39PM
[Via TrustedReviews]
posted June 11th 2009 3:39PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I hope we can get these Gulftown processors at below $300 like the i7 920 processors but I've heard Intel will discontinue it to substitute them for the i5 processors, but they use a different socket.
So if I want a new processor for my LGA 1366 board, I'll have to get a $500+ Extreme Edition processor probably. Please don't scrap the i7 920 Intel!!!
I thought it was already rumored and then confirmed that six cores were under way?
They've been planning it from the beginning they will have 8 cores eventually
Now ... if only companies would start making software that uses 4 cores... then maybe they could begin to think about 6.
Even if you have apps that only make use of a single core,the fact that you have more cores on the cpu means you can open more single threaded apps at the same time without your computer slowing down. For people who only browse the web, these chips are overkill.
For others who multitask, work in video, 3D graphics (not gaming) these cpus are great. It can cut rendering time or encoding time drastically for each core added.
@JS
But are Vista (xp?) or even windows 7 smart enough to automatically dedicate single-threaded applications to a certain core, and then spread them around as you open more? Or do you still have to do it all manually?
I'm STILL happy with my ancient Dual core Socket 939 Opteron setup, however in thinking about upgrading I've never even considered anything over a dual core.
It was my impression the software would be programed for either single threads or multithreads. It seems just stupid to take the time to reprogram for JUST 2 threads, or 4. It should scale dynamically.
Although I'm no software engineer, so I could very well be talking out of my rear.
JS is spot on. One of the nicest things about multicore processors right now is exactly that individual programs aren't made to use them all yet. Single-tasking sucks.
What's more, once multicore exploitation does take hold, software bloat (hello Vista) is just going to get worse. In the future, you might well need 6 cores just to check your email.
elBravo, a lot of the times developers will estimate run times on operation and divide the load appropriately or they thread off only a few things that they know will work. This tends to limit the scope of their program to only a few threads.
Some tasks are better suited for dynamic threading (like ray tracing, video compression and in some cases file transfers) while other tasks adding one more thread to handle some task that isn't mission critical for the app to perform will only ever use 2-3 threads. The first thing that comes to mind is application logic and interfaces. There are quite a few games and applications that thread off the interface section and handle the logic in the main scope of the program. This is a multi-threaded app, but it's limited to two threads. Make sense?
@Anthony M
Heh, I'm still using my socket 939 dual core opteron too. Probably will try to refrain from unneccessary upgrades for another year or 2 then build something new and current. PCIe based SSD, 4+ cores, >4TB storage array, usb 3, DX11+ graphics, 8+GB ram (ddr4?), sata 6Gbit... all kinds of good stuff! Imagine, that'll all be standard levels of tech by then! Well... maybe not, I hear the enthusiast market is dying, but who knows.
Hooray for technology!
If I ever develop a product, remind me to not use Engadget commenters for feedback. There isn't anything that makes you guys happy around here, is there? What? Intel is making six core processors now? We'll never need more than two cores! Are you serious? What did you expect them to do, start removing cores or something? Do people just come here to rant about anything and everything?
What else can you do? It's not like people can say "Good Job Intel" can they?
They could put more R&D into developing truly innovative products. Cpu+gpu combinations, (even) lower power-usage cpus, Faster at lower clock speed processors, less heat-producing processors, etc. Heck they could try and develop better battery technology.
Instead they slap more cores together that (as has been mentioned by others) aren't put to use till very specific applications/situations come into play.
@anthony
More money into R&D: how about $8 billion for 32nm fabs in less than 2 years?
Cpu+gpu: we got clarkdale Q1 2010, Larabee sometime after.
Even lower powered cpu: QX6700 2.66GHz 130w => Q9400s 2.66GHz 65w
Faster at lower clock speed: that's called "add more cores".
Less heat: 95nm>65nm>45nm>32nm>?
Batteries: Ok, I'm not sure why intel should make batteries, maybe GM or Chrysler should make batteries, they can't be any worse at that than they are at making cars.
Devs won't write multi core code until the procs are mainstream, before that can happen someone has to make and ship them to consumers.
For the most part touch features were poorly implemented until apple showed that, if you do this right, people will want it.
It's the chicken and the egg, if people keep screaming "there's no reason for multi cores." There never will be.
if they release new x58 boards with sata3 and usb3 and 6core core i7 920 for the same price as current core i7 i might go for a nehalm rig, otherwise i just wont.
6 cores would be great for x264 encoding:)
@Anthony M.
Vista, windows 7 are both smart enough to put single threaded apps on different cores. I used this feature for the first time on Windows NT4 myself. But back then you were talking about two physical 166mhz pentium pros in a server.
My memory on the subject is getting gray, but I think that was the selling point for the NT kernel where Windows 95-98 wouldn't do that.
Take a look at GrandCentral in the upcoming Snow Leopard release of OSX. It might just have Windows 7 beat as far as ease of multi-core implementation by devs. The easier it is to do, the more devs take advantage of it, the better IMO.
6 cores? more like NehalMeh amirite?
Most of us are some type of power user or enthusiast, but most peoples needs haven't changed much since the P4/Athlon XP era. Unless they bloat and contrive office, accounting, and basic graphics software, there is no need beyond a single core P4, 2.4 ghz for most business applications. There will be NO need for faster computers until consumer streaming HD video becomes popular and 32 bit apps and operating systems lose support.
Six-core Intel Nehalem processors in the works?
No, the industry is moving towards fractional based cores. Six core and Octo Cores have been scrapped.
sex cores ?
Wait, wasn't 2 weeks ago Intel announced 8 core chips, + threading, for the end of this year? Are they not Nehalem based? Case a dual 8 core cpu set up like that... whew.
That's not surprising as they stated in their road map that a 6 core CPU is to be released in Q4 09 but It's delayed until early 2010.