What Does 256 Cores Look Like?

By Doug Holland (Intel) (235 posts) on January 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm

It is most likely true that there aren't many of us who have access to a machine with 256 cores at the moment and unfortunately neither do I. I received the following screen shot of the Windows task manager showing 256 cores running on Windows Server 2008 R2 which uses the same kernel as Windows 7, both of which can now accommodate 256 logical processors.

Sometime between now and when we're more likely to see machines with this level of parallelism it might be an appropriate area for some UI redesign. I don't know many IT administrators or developers that have a 30" LCD monitor, okay I know one and it isn't me unfortunately.

Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 group logical processors into sub groups and it would therefore make sense that the task manager be redesigned to show the performance of processors by group. Without which you'll definitely need a 30" LCD. That said however, if you can afford a 256 logical processor machine then you'll probably be able to find a few extra dollars for a large display.

Categories: Parallel Programming, Software Engineering

Comments (33)

January 5, 2009 2:07 PM PST


Simon Leinen		 Well, a fully-populated Sun T5440[1] would have 256 logical CPUs (on four processor chips - each chip runs 64 hardware threads or "strands"). It's not that big (4RU), although it's a little expensive with four-chip configurations starting at $80'000. The point about the need for UI redesign is a good one. We have a single-chip Niagara (UltraSPARC) T2 system, and even at "only" 64 logical CPUs, the regular multiprocessing management tools are sometimes hard to use.

[1] http://www.sun.com/servers/coolthreads/t5440/
January 6, 2009 2:31 PM PST


Clint Schaefer		 Then there's also the much more affordable (in a manner of speaking) Tilera Tile64 (or Tile/pro/64) chips, with also 64 cores, that run $435/ea but in quantities of 10K :P How much of a mark down people get for that size of bulk, I don't know, but I'll guess that a single chip would probably run around $8-10K (I'm sure I'm far far off) and from the looks of it, they run in riser cards that almost look like it's for a PCIe 1x slot. I won't deny that I lack knowledge in server units and their add-in boards, so I'll shush :)

Yea, these are intended for Video/Telecommunications, but videocards are now doing other tasks so it's not too strange to think that someone could easily work around their intended use to do large number crunching. Hell, look at the crazy PS3/xBox clusters!

http://www.techpowerup.com/index.php?37809
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3158-view-Tilera-64--core-.....ILE64.html
January 6, 2009 5:31 PM PST


weasleman42		 So, what is it that is using 91% of 256 CPUs?! The Intel WoW server?
January 6, 2009 6:41 PM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 In actual fact there are very few applications at the moment that can utilize that level of parallelism and would therefore justify the cost of such hardware.

Microsoft has updated the Windows kernel to enable it to operate with up to 256 logical processors. Within the above screen shot you can see a machine running SQL Server with a simulated load that utilizes all 256 logical processors.

Enabling applications to effectively utilize that number of logical processors is not easy. On machines with a high number of logical processors there is an increased chance of running into the various problems associated with multi-threaded code. Given that it is appropriate that Microsoft is placing considerable energy into ensuring that Windows and applications such as SQL Server can scale to high numbers of logical processors.

In future versions of Windows and other operating systems when we have high numbers of logical processors, even on desktop and mobile platforms, logical processors can be utilized by assigning them to specific tasks. One group of logical processors would be reserved for the operating system, another logical processor or two could be dedicated for virus scanning or malware detection. Of course the majority of logical processors would remain available for running applications.
January 6, 2009 10:18 PM PST


nep		 The statement about UI design made me envision "the future of computing", which is still pleasantly not unlike Motif-friendly colors. The future will still be 8bpp, at best.
January 7, 2009 2:59 AM PST


Harry van raij		 An other useful application would be virtualisation (Hyper-v).
assinging a (couple of) core(s) to a virtual machine.
January 7, 2009 4:25 AM PST


Intellion		 "So, what is it that is using 91% of 256 CPUs?! The Intel WoW server?"

Probably Folding@home
January 7, 2009 6:27 AM PST


Hans von Fuchs		 How many cores supports the Linux kernel?
January 7, 2009 7:23 AM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Hey Harry,

You're absolutely right that virtualization is an excellent application for machines with high numbers of logical processors. I use Hyper-V extensively and it is a great sytsem...

Thanks,

Doug
January 7, 2009 7:24 AM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Hey Hans,

Good question and I am at the moment trying to determine how many logical processors various operating systems can handle and plan to blog about that soon.

Regards,

Doug
January 8, 2009 3:53 AM PST


Nikolay Shopik		 Have look into url with screenshoot of example how it could be done. It on Russian show load 0-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-100.
January 8, 2009 3:54 AM PST


Nikolay Shopik		 I'm sorry forgot to paste
http://www.picamatic.com/show/2009/01/08/05/16/1695047_500x440.PNG
January 8, 2009 4:57 AM PST


abductee		 I CAME
January 8, 2009 5:55 AM PST


SillyQuestion		 Assuming this is an x86 box, you have 8 bit wide APIC IDs with one reserved
for broadcasting purposes. How can the kernel run on 256 cores and not just
255 (like Linux)? What kind of machine is that?
January 8, 2009 6:08 AM PST


SillyQuestion		 Edit: Ok, I forgot Windows supports IA64 as well.
January 8, 2009 7:50 AM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Hi 'SillyQuestion'

I believe the machines architecture is based upon Xeon processors and not Itanium.

- Doug
January 8, 2009 7:51 AM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Hi Nikolay,

I appologize but I don't speak Russian but know some people at Intel that do, let me get with them and then I can comment on the Url you provided.

Regards,

Doug
January 8, 2009 11:21 AM PST


DZVlad		 Doug, the x axis on the Russian picture is time, the y axis is load distribution, "нагрузка" or "nagruzka" means load with the digits speaking for themselves and to the right "ядер" means cores.

So if you look at the graph at any given time, it shows you the number of cpus who fall into specified load groups (that is 0-25%, bla, bla). I guess you were talking about fixed groups of logical CPUs, while this approach tries to make grouping dynamic. However, making the logical CPU group dynamic, we would probably still want to attach them to some kind of task type, like antivirus as you mentioned.

There's definitely a lot to work on =)
January 8, 2009 11:38 AM PST


Stanislav Yaglo		 Here's the translated graph :)
http://img233.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graphdv8.png
January 8, 2009 4:09 PM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Hi DZVlad,

That makes sense and you are definately right that there is much to work on in this area.

Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 have done some great work in preparing us for this level of parallelism. Until such time as we have 256 cores available within the server or elsewhere then this ground work will benefit us even with the small number of cores in most computers today. Not to mention the diet these new versions of Windows have undergone benefiting those with older single core processors.

Dynamic grouping of CPU's is interesting but as you said, fixed grouping will still provide substantial benefits.

Regards,

Doug
January 8, 2009 4:10 PM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Hi Stanislav,

Thanks for providing the Url to the graph in English.

Regards,

Doug
January 14, 2009 6:19 PM PST


José Encarnação		 I have a Q9550.
Can I trade with that one!?
I swear I'll get a nice motherboard for it!

LOL

Keep up the good work!
January 14, 2009 8:54 PM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Hey Jose

Q9550 is a really nice processor, a little newer than the quad core processor I am using in my desktop. Unfortunately it may be a while before my desktop task manager looks anything like the one shown in this blog post.

Thanks for the kind words and I'll certainly try to keep up the good work :)

- Doug
February 25, 2009 9:19 AM PST


Jeff Parker		 Sure just after I buy an I7 Extreme for my home you show me this.

Actually I do have a 36" CRT monitor I would sell you cheap. Remember the Gateway Destination systems from 1995, lifetime warranty on the monitor and it still runs perfectly. Unfortunately it is only capable of 800x600 resolution max. But I can say I have a 36" monitor and for it's time it was impressive. Takes 2 big guys to move it as a CRT monitor that old and that big is heavy.
February 25, 2009 10:08 AM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Wow, a 36" monitor is definately cool although it is a shame about the resolution.

With VS2010 coming soon I'd like to have the I7 extreme edition along with two 30" displays. If you're a developer and use any version of Visual Studio today you'll find many new features to get excited about.

I wrote this blog post last night about the forthcoming release:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2009/02/25/vslive-visu.....-new-look/
March 2, 2009 11:08 PM PST

Raghava Darisi (Intel)
Total Points:
305
Status Points:
255
Green Belt
 very good blog
March 4, 2009 8:09 AM PST

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Thanks Veera,

- Doug
March 12, 2009 8:33 PM PDT

Gastón C. Hillar
Total Points:
3,131
Status Points:
3,131
Black Belt
 Hi,

Does anybody have information about Windows 7 cores limitations? Because, one issue is the kernel possibilities and other issue is the artificial and commercial limitations. A Core i7 with Hyper-Threading has 4 * 2 = 8 logical cores and 4 physical cores. A powerful workstations with 2 Core i7 with Hyper-Threading has 4 * 2 * 2= 16 logical cores and 8 physical cores. I was wondering about the limits in Windows 7.
I think 2 Core i7 CPUs could be a possibility for running Windows 7 in late 2009 or early 2010.

Gastón
June 11, 2009 7:36 PM PDT

bill9603
Total Points:
1,220
Status Points:
720
Brown Belt
 Thats a lot of power.
July 2, 2009 12:18 PM PDT


Daniel Melanchthon [MS]		 @Gastón: We license by socket, not by cores. We support as many cores as you can get on the processor up to 256. Windows 7 supports up to 2 processor sockets. Windows Server 2008 R2 varies depending on the version, this also varies in regard to the amount of symmetrical multiprocessing as well, which going to define how many processors a process can use at once.

Daniel
July 2, 2009 12:21 PM PDT

Doug Holland (Intel)
Total Points:
12,750
Status Points:
12,750
Black Belt
 Thanks Daniel,

These are exciting times we're in these days and without a doubt Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are the right operating systems for parallelism. With the support for parallel / multi-core programming in VS2010 life is just getting better and better :)

- Doug
August 7, 2009 8:43 AM PDT


Moshster		 Come on Doug, 'fess up. That's really the computer that is hosting the entire internet.
September 16, 2009 2:47 AM PDT


CLi		 That's just for the porn industry, really , what is the frequency of each "core"? And do any cores do decision making to split workloads up amongst the other cores? I couldn't foresee a free-for-all fight between 256 cores for work.

Trackbacks (4)


Leave a comment  

To obtain technical support, please go to Software Support.
Name (required)*

Email (required; will not be displayed on this page)*

Your URL (optional)


Comment*