http://www.techradar.com/news/computing ... sor-644691

Let's all get one

I think there are for industrial use and wouldn't compete in the same market or applications as regular AMD or Intel CPU's. As for processing power and total number of cores, these have them licked anyway :

http://www.nvidia.com/object/preconfigu ... sters.html

240 'cores' per processor

But the main issue is these Tilera CPU's aren't X86. Despite what some articles are saying.

Might be interesting for the next generation of Macs, but there aren't many applications that will take advantage of that many cores...

If they need 100 cores to offer 4 times the performance of the 8 cores of the Nehalem Ex, that sounds like a very inefficient processor, per core, although the combined power is greater, due to sheer numbers.

That would mean, for a normal desktop user, the computer would be very slow, unless they actually had applications which scaled to 100 cores - normal office tasks and web browsing would be much slower.

This looks like a processor for very specialised applications, in its current form. Although the energy saving aspects are very interesting.

Sounds interesting, but as Dave said, until application scale to that many cores it won't be much good.
It will be interesting to see how programming will change over the next few years to adopt multiple cores to increase performance.

As phobos said, that sounds suspiciously like a GPU setup.

The way the article is written and from the quotes used, it sounds like its a regular CPU.



It sounds like they are talking about competing with Intel's regular CPU's, which makes me think it's not a GPU.