Analysis: more than 16 cores may well be pointless

ars technica writes:

"One of the ongoing themes of my microprocessor coverage over the past few years has been the relationship between on-chip execution bandwidth and the "memory wall." So I was intrigued to learn of new research from Sandia National Labs that indicates that the severity of the memory wall problem may be much greater than the industry generally anticipates."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Spydiggity3631d ago

Just like when they said we'll never need more than a 20gig HD.

AuToFiRE3631d ago

The more cores the better, imagine being able to assign a core to each part of a game, a core to left audio, a core to right audio, a core to red, a core to blue anda core to green, a core to white anda core to black, you ca split it right down to everything and then assign multiple cores to each too like it gets really powerful with the more cores

darkdoom30003631d ago

next generation colouring FTW!

Kakkoii3631d ago

It's not the video output that takes the most processing. It's creating that video that does.

You can only split a games coding into so many threads, before things become really unstable.

AuToFiRE3630d ago

yes the graphics card does SOME of it but everything still passes through the CPU

Strife Lives3631d ago

Having lazy devs is a WHOLE nother problem.

CrayzeeCarl3631d ago

I'm a software developer (mostly Windows stuff), and I will be the first to admit that we all need to do our best to shift to multi-threaded programming, but you act like it's so easy and it's not.

It's extremely difficult to work with multiple threads and until you become a developer (I'm guessing you're not one) and experience it yourself, don't smack FUD.

baum3631d ago

A 500-core CPU was tested last year in Japan and it was awesome. So no.

karlostomy3631d ago (Edited 3631d ago )

Does that mean the cell's 8 cores are half as pointless?

Show all comments (11)