Oh, looks like intel might actually stick a lot of atoms together. Maybe they will call it Intel DNA. LOL
Basically, like IBMs Cell processor is a "master" and 6,7 or 8 slaves depending on yield, the Intel approach could be to take a, e.g. Core 2 QUAD, and stick sixteen Atoms around it. Now I understand why they call it "atom". Also, for a DESKTOP, a core 2 quad with 16 atoms would be insanely powerful. For servers running multiple virtual servers, then perhaps two or four Quad Xeons would be better. I guess it depends no exactly what the server will spend most of its time "doing". From a price/performance perspective, a Quad and 16 atoms would be much better than 2 Quads for typical desktop applications.
The picture above shows (with artistic license),
1./ Dual Core
2./ Octo Core (or 2 quad xeons like in Intels new skulltrail workstation platform)
3./ Tri Core with 12 atoms
4./ Dual Core with 64 atoms
With these type of CPUs, you can FORGET ABOUT dedicated PPU hardware like ageia. Do it all on-die.
>> This is going to introduce a whole new language for performance and thread management. I dont think Windows is ready yet to farm out tasks to such differently powered units. Windows can just about cope with multiple cores or multiple CPUs BUT ONLY if they are at the same speed. If you mix speeds, example dual CPU workstation with one CPUs faster than the other, then the thread scheduler isnt clever enough to farm threads across the different cores in the most efficient way. This can only be done manually by locking a certain task to one specific core, which isnt great either. Once you have lots of "processing units" of different powers/abilities, the scheduling gets pretty complicated OR there is a lot of redundancy. I guess if these atoms are cheap, just add more. LOL.
WOW, a dual core with 64 atoms would really render!