Saturday, February 23rd 2008
![Intel](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/intel-v1723816949774.png)
Intel Planning Six-Core Processor, Will Call it 'Dunnington'
Intel is planning on serving a heaping pile of pain to AMD's revenue/stock figures again in a few months, by developing a six-core juggernaut. While AMD is still tweaking on a way to merely get four cores to work in tandem, Intel is hard at work shoving two more cores on one die. This six-core monstrosity will be succeeded by the even beefier Nehalem micro-architecture, which could have up to eight cores on one die. Most of the Dunnington project is still top-secret, but some say that Intel already has most of the hard work done.
Source:
Gizmodo
Intel has already put together a die, the size of a postage stamp, with three dual-core 45nm Penryn chips on it sharing a 16MB L3 cache. Allegedly, we'll see the Dunnington in either Q2 or Q3, this year.
110 Comments on Intel Planning Six-Core Processor, Will Call it 'Dunnington'
Read a little about it here
Today's software and games barely use up to 4-cores as it is, what on earth are we going to do with 6 :D
The original article makes it seem like they'll have Xeon 54xx and 74xx chips based off this - in fact, Xeon chips only. No s775. Is it just me? Cuz I'm confused with just about everybody's posts in both Dunnington threads :D
My only concern about this is that it will push Nehalem back to a later date.
Id like to see Intel quit ductaping cores together and make a contiguous one.
That sounds confusing, but it makes sense. Figure it this way, you need to render a pie. As of now, the pie would be cut in half and fed to each core, or into quarters for 4 cores. Each core sits there and munches on it's section of pie until it's done. It would make more sense to have each core TAKE as much they can fit on their plate at the same time instead of it being assigned to them as one big chunk. If they can't finish it it one serving, then all of them should go back for another full slice simultaneously, until its gone. With this sort of methodology in place, you could have any number of cores working on any size pie, and be much more efficient.
For anyone who's wondering, yes, I am a software engineer by trade.
The main problem, however, is that the vast majority of applications available today are coded to use only 2 threads (often because it's not feasible for them to use more than that - for example, a web browser). Right now, the only people who will benefit from having a quad-core CPU are the crazy multi-taskers, hardcore gamers, and manic overclockers (IMO).
Finally, does it really matter how Intel designs their chips, as long as they offer excellent performance? AMD tried the "native" quad-core approach and look at how badly that turned out... Intel has gone with an approach that is inelegent, but works well, and that's what the consumer cares about.
Besides that, this can all be done easily with 4 cores and 4 GBs of ram. Unless you're a professional, you won't need them.
Later though, I do acknowledge that there will be a need for 6 cores as more and more developers begin to take multi threaded apps to the next level.
it's pointless to have a truck unless you can make use of it's potential but people buy trucks and drive them all over the place without ever using it for its real purpose.... hauling, towing, etc. the saem goes with SUV's. most people i see driving SUV's are alone and have nothing else inside their BEAST of a automobile.
what does that nonsense have to do with the topic of 6 core cpu's? it's the simple fact that, whether we need it or not, there is still a market for such a beast of a CPU and i KNOW a TON of people who would love to have a 6 core cpu. if it scales the same way the quads do, then the core 2 hetco will be one crazy chip.
I'm personally happy these are coming though, the price of quads will drop significantly! :toast: