As if Intel can predict 10yrs into the future. They having trouble predicting one year in advance. I seriously doubt that Intel massive parallelism will be the solution to all their CPU issues. Looking somewhat ahead I see the parallelism thread dying out at around 8 pipelines for the simple reason, that most “standard” (non games or scientific apps) programs would never use more then eight. Look at RISC, most RISC architecture have 10 thread, and its been that way for the last 10yrs or more. You can only go so wide before the width becomes detrimental to the processing of the instruction.
the super resolution demo requires video people;
it interpolates a 60-90 frames into 1 frame like the guy above said....
and #8 ... I think they mean 1000x because the size of the image used in the demo is very small... so if you wanted to use it on say a face then you would need WAY more computing power.... eg. the stuff on CSI is so bunk....
Wishful thinking for Intel. Who the heck knows what will happen in 10 years. The earth will probably be taken over by Soviet Russia and Yakov Smirnov will be president.
When I hear about this stuff I keep thinking back to the Prescott and how it was going to scale to 5 GHz + . Yeah right.
#2 The Super Resolution technique would work only with a video signal as stated a 3 second low resolution one. It would not work with a single still low resolution image. The software just compares the pixels and motion between frames to generate a single clean frame. 3 seconds can mean 30 to 90 frames for analysis in total depending on the rate of capture. Still very impressive how clear it made it.
Impressive stuff.. I cant wait till 2015... I want 100 cores now! I bet developer tools and compilers will start to take advantage of huge multitrheading.
Anyone think the idea of sticking two cores directly on top of one another for Intel's current processor line is a little bit ambitious? We're already curious about how 2 Prescotts side by side will fare, but one on top of another, how can that dissipate such a tremendous amount of heat?
Maybe it was just Anand's screenshot, but the 'Super Resolution' technique looks like someone making up the whole thing when the source text is not supposed to be readable. Perfect for tampering with evidence. :)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
Back to Article
Verdant - Saturday, March 5, 2005 - link
sigh - no compiler is going to magically make software work in parallel.not everything is "parallel-able" (my new word for the day)
some tasks must be serial-processed, it is the nature of computing.
my main point is that i hope we can see individual "cores" keep increasing their speed..
did he say anything about what the highlighted "photonics" box on the slide was about?
mkruer - Friday, March 4, 2005 - link
As if Intel can predict 10yrs into the future. They having trouble predicting one year in advance. I seriously doubt that Intel massive parallelism will be the solution to all their CPU issues. Looking somewhat ahead I see the parallelism thread dying out at around 8 pipelines for the simple reason, that most “standard” (non games or scientific apps) programs would never use more then eight. Look at RISC, most RISC architecture have 10 thread, and its been that way for the last 10yrs or more. You can only go so wide before the width becomes detrimental to the processing of the instruction.Locut0s - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
#12 Oops should have reap above posts. Yeah that makes more sense then.xsilver - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
the super resolution demo requires video people;it interpolates a 60-90 frames into 1 frame like the guy above said....
and #8 ... I think they mean 1000x because the size of the image used in the demo is very small... so if you wanted to use it on say a face then you would need WAY more computing power.... eg. the stuff on CSI is so bunk....
Locut0s - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
Am I the only one that thinks that the "Super Resolution" Demo shown there is just a little too good to be true?xsilver - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
"nanoscale thermal pumps"sounds like some tool you need to get botox done :)
sphinx - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
All I can say is, we'll see.DCstewieG - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
60 seconds to do 3 seconds of footage. That would seem to me it needs 20x the power to do it in real-time. What's this about 1000x?clarkey01 - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
Intel said in early 03 that they would be at 10 Ghz ( nehalem) in 2005.So dont hold you breathe on thier dual core predictions
Phlargo - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
Didn't Intel originally say that they could scale the P4 architecture to 10 ghz?HardwareD00d - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
Wishful thinking for Intel. Who the heck knows what will happen in 10 years. The earth will probably be taken over by Soviet Russia and Yakov Smirnov will be president.When I hear about this stuff I keep thinking back to the Prescott and how it was going to scale to 5 GHz + . Yeah right.
Dualboy24 - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
#2 The Super Resolution technique would work only with a video signal as stated a 3 second low resolution one. It would not work with a single still low resolution image. The software just compares the pixels and motion between frames to generate a single clean frame. 3 seconds can mean 30 to 90 frames for analysis in total depending on the rate of capture. Still very impressive how clear it made it.Impressive stuff.. I cant wait till 2015... I want 100 cores now! I bet developer tools and compilers will start to take advantage of huge multitrheading.
ZobarStyl - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
Anyone think the idea of sticking two cores directly on top of one another for Intel's current processor line is a little bit ambitious? We're already curious about how 2 Prescotts side by side will fare, but one on top of another, how can that dissipate such a tremendous amount of heat?quanta - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
Maybe it was just Anand's screenshot, but the 'Super Resolution' technique looks like someone making up the whole thing when the source text is not supposed to be readable. Perfect for tampering with evidence. :)coldpower27 - Thursday, March 3, 2005 - link
Interesting stuff.