In what Intel CPU generation will 8 cores be introduced?

[Fjodor2001]

For quite some time the CPU performance increases between CPU generations have been modest and evolutionary. The latest significant leap was going from Netburst(P4) -> Conroe(C2D).

Focus on Ivy Bridge & Haswell seems to be to improve Ultrabook power consumption / battery life / iGPU performance. So when can we expect the next major leap? I guess it would mean Intel providing 8 core mainstream CPUs? Clearly that will not happen with Haswell. So will we have to wait until Broadwell, Skylake, Skymont, or beyond? Has anything been communicated by Intel?

 

[ShintaiDK]

So something aka. LGA11xx type 8 cores? Depends how software develops.

Haswell and Broadwell will be quads for sure. And core amount in Skylake and Skymont will most likely be quads too if I had to guess. Basicly you get 6-8 cores etc when software makes a proper use of it. Until then you are better of with new instructions, integration of chipsets, better iGPU and so on.

Problem is the mainstream software is really terrible to multithread. AMD will will basicly back down to Intel standards after the last AM3+ chip with Pilediver. Better to add iGPU than idle cores.

So overall I wouldnt put my hopes up for anything above 4 cores for a really long time. Unless you buy the enthutiast/workstation/server versions.

 

[sm625]

Current intel 4 core outperforms many 8 core chips, such as FX8150, as well as older generation dual quad xeons. So it is not exactly fair to not consider 4 cores + HT to be 8 cores. If it walks and quacks like a duck...

 

[frozentundra123456]

Current intel 4 core outperforms many 8 core chips, such as FX8150, as well as older generation dual quad xeons. So it is not exactly fair to not consider 4 cores + HT to be 8 cores. If it walks and quacks like a duck...

Well, it is still disappointing that we have been stuck at 4 cores for the mainstream for so long with intel, and with no real outlook for six or eight core mainstream parts. How much does hyperthreading really help-- maybe 30 percent under the best case scenario? For ultimate performance six or eight physical cores of the same architecture will outperform 4 cores plus hyperthreading in highly threaded workloads.

It seems sort of a chicken vs egg situation. Granted most software does not utilize more than 4 cores, but wouldnt software develop at a faster rate if six core chips were readily avalilable? It just seems unfortunate that we went from dual core to quad core in a few months if I recall correctly, while we have been stuck on quad cores (speaking of Intel) for what, five or six years now?

 

[BD231]

Current intel 4 core outperforms many 8 core chips, such as FX8150, as well as older generation dual quad xeons. So it is not exactly fair to not consider 4 cores + HT to be 8 cores. If it walks and quacks like a duck...

Bulldozer is not an 8 core chip, if it was it might actually perform.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The problem is diminishing returns. Just look at how much software that even utilizes a quad today. Its barely anything. And hyperthreading is the key for developes to go beyond...if they can and want.

The software industry is decades behind the hardware. So dont blame hardware companies for the failure of software companies. AMD is going backwards with cores too and fitting more useful parts to their CPUs instead.

Even Microsoft .net installations or components that use it for setups is singlethreaded. For example it takes roughly 1½-2 hours to install Exchange 2010 SP2+Rollup 3 on a server due to that. Singlethreaded all the way in a scenario where 8-32 threads capable systems aint uncommon.

 

[pantsaregood]

Bulldozer is not an 8 core chip, if it was it might actually perform.

Bulldozer is an eight-core chip. From what I understand, each pair of integer units share a 256-bit FPU that can also function as two 128-bit FPUs. Bulldozer performs poorly because the cores are inefficient, not because it isn't a "real" eight-core CPU.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Bulldozer is an eight-core chip. From what I understand, each pair of integer units share a 256-bit FPU that can also function as two 128-bit FPUs. Bulldozer performs poorly because the cores are inefficient, not because it isn't a "real" eight-core CPU.

Shared fetch, decode, instruction cache, dispatch etc...

Not to mention the performance impact of using both INT clusters...

 

[Smoblikat]

Current intel 4 core outperforms many 8 core chips, such as FX8150, as well as older generation dual quad xeons. So it is not exactly fair to not consider 4 cores + HT to be 8 cores. If it walks and quacks like a duck...

AMD Thuban was a great example of a solid mainstream 6 core processor, if AMD could at least get that kind of performance (sucks that they have to get back up to their old level) and increase it some then we would have a winner. An AMD 6 core with the per core performance of a 2500K at 200$ would be an instant hit.

 

[Ferzerp]

The answer is Nehalem in early 2010....

What kind of question is this? The processor already exists and has for over 2 years.

a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of home users would actually utilize more than 4 cores today.

I can't stress how tiny that fraction of a percent is.

 

[SithSolo1]

If you want 8-cores you need to put the big boy pants on and step up to the larger sockets. I doubt we'll see 8-core mainstream from Intel the next 5 years, there is just not enough need or demand for it.

 

[moonbogg]

No need, no demand. That is, unless you are retarded like me and gamble on it improving game performance and then LOSE that gamble. But hey, there wasn't a SINGLE damn review out there that had useful information in it regarding core count and multiplayer gaming, so I had to gamble.
Xeon or bust. But hey, you can always go with aMd bullderper.

 

[LoneNinja]

When most people are still purchasing Pentium/I3/I5 instead of an 8 thread I7, and when most software makes absolutely no use of those extra threads on the I7 compared to an I5, where is the incentive to add more cores?

Looking at AMDs roadmap, there are currently no Steamroller parts listed other than the 2 core/ 4 core APUs, it's looking like they won't even bother with a 6 or 8 core variant.

Software needs to catch up before Intel is going to bother producing more expensive higher core parts when there is low demand.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I doubt we'll see 8-core mainstream from Intel the next 5 years, there is just not enough need or demand for it.

Don't we have a chicken and egg scenario here? If the Intel mainstream CPUs would be 8 cores instead of 4 cores, don't you think the SW would be adapted to make use of that?

For example, BF3 makes good use of 4 cores. Do you think that would still be the case even if Intel would have decided to stay at 2 cores for their mainstream CPUs, instead of transitioning to 4 cores?

 

[Fjodor2001]

@SithSolo1: Also, you predicted we will not see any 8-core mainstream CPU from Intel within the next 5 years. But within that timeframe Intel plans to do two node shrinks, effectively providing four times the current silicon real estate per CPU die. What do you think Intel intends to do with all that silicon space? Only keep increasing the iGPU and caches?

 

[ShintaiDK]

What do you think Intel intends to do with all that silicon space? Only keep increasing the iGPU and caches?

VRM integration, PCH(SATA, USB, NIC, Audio etc) integration, faster iGPU, possible memory integration and so on.

We didnt get more than 4 cores on the mainstream for 2 shrinks now. And with good reason.

The cores themselves also grow in transistor terms. Counteracting some of the shrink benefits.

 

[lopri]

Don't expect it unless there come unexpected externalities. (such as Chinese government developing their own chips and banning Intel/Windows within its borders, and even then Intel will be the "good guy" Rofl) It's what happens when a market is under monopoly. You face the typical drug-dealer situation.

 

[Fjodor2001]

VRM integration, PCH(SATA, USB, NIC, Audio etc) integration, faster iGPU, possible memory integration and so on.

Apart from the iGPU, do you really think that will occupy 4 times the current available silicon space? Come on...

 

[Homeles]

Bulldozer is not an 8 core chip, if it was it might actually perform.

It is an 8 core chip. Stop pretending that you can write your own definition of what a core is.

 

[Red Hawk]

It is an 8 core chip. Stop pretending that you can write your own definition of what a core is.

It's not a true 8 core chip. It's physically impossible to make a "single core" processor out of the Bulldozer architecture.

 

[jhu]

It is an 8 core chip. Stop pretending that you can write your own definition of what a core is.

Depends on what the definition of "core" is. To me, a "core" should be able to fetch and decode one thread's instructions each cycle and two threads' instructions every other cycle. One Bulldozer module fetches and decodes two threads' instructions every other cycle. And if you go by Sun's definition, that's CMT.

 

[moonbogg]

Bullderp is 8 core. Its just 8 baby corn cores.

 

[lakedude]

I'm curious why you think you need 8 cores?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Apart from the iGPU, do you really think that will occupy 4 times the current available silicon space? Come on...

Compare a Core 2 core to an IB core. And you see it has grown quite alot.

This thread is starting to look like the classic: X company is evil because they wont give me something nobody else needs, and I wont pay for the items in the segment that offers it.

Both Intel and AMD is going this route for a reason. If you want to complain about lack of 8 cores etc. Then blame software companies.

 

[dinker99]

I'm curious why you think you need 8 cores?

I use Sony Vegas a lot and it pegs out my PC during a render:

http://i47.tinypic.com/25a556w.jpg