Intel - Market Doesn't Need Eight Cores 548
PeterK writes "TG Daily has posted an interesting interview with Intel's top mobility executive David Perlmutter. While he sideswipes AMD very carefully ('I am not underestimating the competition, but..'), he shares some details about the successor of Core, which goes by the name 'Nehalem.' Especially interesting are his remarks about power consumption, which he believes will 'dramatically' decrease in the next years as well as the number of cores in processors: Two are enough for now, four will be mainstream in three years and eight is something the desktop market does not need." From the article: "Core scales and it will be scaling to the level we expect it to. That also applies to the upcoming generations - they all will come with the right scaling factors. But, of course, I would be lying if I said that it scales from here to eternity. In general, I believe that we will be able to do very well against what AMD will be able to do. I want everybody to go from a frequency world to a number-of-cores-world. But especially in the client space, we have to be very careful with overloading the market with a number of cores and see what is useful."
What he missed... (Score:0, Funny)
oh, and 640k is going to be enough for everyone.
Silly Perlmutter (Score:5, Funny)
If the home user can justify (even indirectly due to demands of the operating system or changes in software architecture) 4 cores then 8 is immenently logical. Seems some minds at Intel are falling back to the dubious position they held regarding home users never needing 64 bit CPUs. Then again, maybe they're just playing dumb and are slaving away, burning midnight oil by the drum, to make 8 and 16 core processors.
Three Cores for the Clippy, but I don't know why,
Seven for the Vista kernel which is defect prone,
Nine for for Bloat which will make the cooling fry,
One for the Screensaver to toil alone,
In the Land of Redmond where Marketing lies.
One Core to rule them all, One Core to find them,
One Core to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Redmond where Marketing lies.
Neither four nor eight. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:5, Funny)
The Little Mouse that Roars!
KFG
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:5, Funny)
eight is something the desktop market does not need
So is he the only person on the planet who has not tried the Vista beta?
My own redundant reply (Score:1, Funny)
this reminds me of theonion (Score:1, Funny)
6 Coors enough (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:5, Funny)
I'll be the first to say it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:3, Funny)
void * allocateMemory(size_t bytesNeeded)
{
time_t myTime;
time(&myTime);
struct tm * myTm = localtime(&myTime);
unsigned int ramWastingFactor = myTm->tm_year > 100 ? (myTim->tm_year - 100) : 1;
return malloc(bytesNeeded * ramWastingFactor);
}
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:3, Funny)
CPU 1: User
CPU 2: Windows Vista (Swap baby swap)
CPU 3: Outlook Anti-spam filter
CPU 4: Norton Anti-virus scanner
CPU 5: Web-security system
CPU 6: Sony "DRM Enabling" root-kit
Now, if you had said that average Linux user...
***Ducking And Covering***
- Tash
Yippie... Hybrids! [tashcorp.net]
Re:I'll be the first to say it... (Score:2, Funny)
Here is another.
I estimate the global market for cores at about 4.
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:2, Funny)
I agree. All these years we've been suffering with RANDOM access memory, an crutch of an antiquated technology that's time is over. Considering that computers do a whole bunch of searching, and a binary search is so much faster than a sequential search, and that you can only do a binary search on sorted data, if we could just get SORTED access memory instead of the end-of-its-usefull-life RANDOM crap, computers would be much faster.
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We've heard that before. (Score:2, Funny)