1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel's upcoming Teraflop CPU to use less than 70W power

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Ben Clarke, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    Intel's experimental 1TFlop CPU is currently using 62W of power, and uses less than 1V on a 65nm process. It currently has 3.16GHz on each core, with 80 cores, totalling up to 1.01TFlops. Intel also has 2 more in development. Here is a chart showing what is currently in development:

    Frequency Voltage Power Aggregate Bandwidth Performance
    3.16 GHz 0.95 V 62W 1.62 Terabits/s 1.01 Teraflops
    5.1 GHz 1.2 V 175W 2.61 Terabits/s 1.63 Teraflops
    5.7 GHz 1.35 V 265W 2.92 Terabits/s 1.81 Teraflops

    Source: Intel
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2007
  2. tkpenalty New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,958 (2.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Location:
    Australia, Sydney
    Ben = Pretentious :p

    Joking, but, Teraflops = squat.
     
  3. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    How can you say that 1TFlop = Nothing?

    Blasphemer!
     
  4. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Blue Gene does 360 tera-f.l.o.p.s.

    The question is....what do you do with all of them :)
     
  5. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    Yeah, but Blue Gene is like 7000 computers in a high-speed LAN, I believe.
     
  6. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    I dont think they would LAN supercomputers.
    That would probably be a bottleneck.

    More like a single massive system with a heap of integrated processors, each with their own ram etc.
     
  7. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    It's called a cluster. Many supercomputers are in fact clusters.
     
  8. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    So the LAN thing was right or wrong :confused:?
     
  9. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
  10. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    so i was only half right!? :cry:
    Whats the LAN medium/controlling hardware?
    Fibre optic?
     
  11. zekrahminator

    zekrahminator McLovin

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,113 (2.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    321
    Location:
    My house.
    If you want to be a newsposter, Clarke, you should talk to W1zzard ;).
     
  12. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    nah, not newspaposter. I don't find that much stuff ;)
     
  13. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Yay, everyone can therefore spam and increase post count.
    :roll:
     
  14. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    Wait, how does me saying I don't want to be a newsposter account for everyone spamming?
     
  15. Ketxxx

    Ketxxx Heedless Psychic

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,510 (3.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Location:
    Kingdom of gods
    Somehow, it just does it would seem :p
     
  16. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    Hmm... in that case, I must be some sort of a demi-god. Wierd.
     
  17. Sasqui

    Sasqui

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7,758 (2.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,482
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
    Personally, I thought it was a worthy post... you should include the source.

    Demi-God if you think so. My post count just went up by one, but just because I said that some mod will deduct 100 :rolleyes:
     
  18. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    OK, source coming up if I can figure out how to make it a word and not the URL.

    EDIT: It's there.
     
  19. Sasqui

    Sasqui

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7,758 (2.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,482
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
  20. Ben Clarke

    Ben Clarke

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,403 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    152
    Location:
    England
    May I just say, the chip is roughly 1 foot x 1/2 foot. Big chip.
     
  21. kwchang007

    kwchang007 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,979 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    185
    Location:
    Severn, MD, USA.
    So...1.01 teraflops over 80 cores? So each core carries out ~.0126 teraflops. Let's see my computer peaked at 7655 megaflops on scienecmark. Since the SGEMM isn't multi-threaded, that's 7655 megaflops per core. So, 7.655 gigaflops, .007655 teraflops. Now let's take a core 2 at 3ghz, just going on my score and scaling it up by 5/3's. That's ~ .0128 teraflops. Wow, this is a very efficient architecture, I was expecting core 2 to be much more efficient but that's not true. But somewhere they had to get rid of something that makes it work worse, and I bet that's cache. It probably has very little cache per core.
     
  22. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    How much power is required to let several Core2's do the same amount of work? Ah yes that must be the key here.
     
  23. kwchang007

    kwchang007 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,979 (1.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    185
    Location:
    Severn, MD, USA.
    Yeah, I was saying somewhere they must've cut something in order to save energy and lower heat dissipation. Either that or Intel has made a similarly efficient architecture with less transistors (since it is 65 nm). My bet is they took out chunks of conroe and which is why it can clock so high. I wonder if this will use CSI so they can really cut down on the cache.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page