Rumor: AMD to launch 10 core desktop CPU in 2012?

PC makers may not be selling as many desktops as they used to, thanks in part to higher sales of devices like smartphones and Apple's iPad. However that isn't stopping PC processor makers from developing plans to make new and even more powerful PC CPUs. PC Gamer reports that a leaked processor road map from AMD reveals that the company is working on a desktop CPU with a whopping 10 processor cores inside.

The roadmap, which first appeared on a Chinese news web site, shows that the 10 core CPU has the rather appropriate code name "Piledriver". It's designed to be a variation on AMD's previously announced "Bulldozer" CPU which is scheduled to launch with eight processor cores later this year. The Piledriver CPU will also use a new motherboard design called the FM2. The article adds that the roadmap also includes the Trinity CPU/GPU hybrid which is also supposed to use the same design as the Piledriver CPU along with the FM2 motherboard.

In an era where not too long ago having a quad-core CPU inside a gaming PC was a huge deal the prospect of being about to purchase a desktop gaming PC with a whopping 10 core is certainly a major one. It will be interesting to see what the pricing will be on such a processor and if PC game developers will take advantage of having so many cores to work with. AMD recently announced that it had brought in $1.57 billion in revenues for its latest quarter.

Image credit: link

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Phone Mango build 7712 released for devs

Next Story

LulzSec spokesman "Topiary" has been arrested say UK police [Update: LulzSec confirms]

66 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

ChrisJ1968 said,
a very hot CPU for sure

Why do you say that.... doesn't die shrinkage and lower power make for cooler running chips if anything these shouldn't be any hotter than my Phenom II x4 940 running at 3.4GHz

Well having 10 cores is pretty useless in gaming (pointing to the bit in article about having a gaming pc with 10 cores) as shown by the amd 6 cores vs quad core. Think the quad cores beat it as it's down to the gfx card ultimately. One could argue that AI could be more enhanced yet the quad cores of today are under utilised so plenty more room with current hardware to make it more complex. 10 cores for graphics designers etc will be win for them

Panda X said,
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I prefer CPU cores to go 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. Other numbers just seem odd.
I would think powers of two would make most sense. Leave it to AMD to start the trend with triple core CPU's, lol.

With so many cores we will end up with dedicated CPU's for things, eg 2x cores reserved for system etc.

So much awesome, idk how it will do against ivy ridge though

I'm going for the 8-core thingy for my next build... but the 10-core cpu is tempting.
Why?

I'm a programmer... I'll make my computer use as many cores as I see fit, just to justify my buying the thing.
Also, I want to have 32 Gigabytes of RAM. New computer arriving in 3-4 months. Woohoo!

damn! so nice, 10 cores for a chip processor! it would be really nice for my 3d renders and compositing. just like when i got my 1090T.
even though they are start to using gpu for alot of stuff, sometimes cpu its better than gpu.

Sraf said,
Problem?

/Not troll problem

"Discrete" for me means not powerfull, mabe it's just a missunderstanding of mine, becouse "Discrete" in portuguese as a synonym of "modest".

Billy Gun said,

"Discrete" for me means not powerfull, mabe it's just a missunderstanding of mine, becouse "Discrete" in portuguese as a synonym of "modest".

That's "discreet." Discrete and discreet are different words with different meanings.

random_ said,
alexalex, I believe it's called multi-threading, most modern applications are using this principle. Using that, Windows can automatically balance the load on different cores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_%28computer_science%29

Isn't multi-threading, a processor/cpu feature and not a Windows OS feature ? Isn't the cpu that decides with code will be executed on which core, and not the programmer / OS ?

alexalex said,

Isn't multi-threading, a processor/cpu feature and not a Windows OS feature ? Isn't the cpu that decides with code will be executed on which core, and not the programmer / OS ?

The OS recognizes which systems have Hyper-Threading and schedules for performance and thread management accordingly. It also recognizes hyperthreads and physical threads to make decisions on where to assign threads; it migrates threads to an available core at the appropriate time when necessary.

http://itexpertvoice.com/home/...-core-support-in-windows-7/

Anyone care to explain what good are multiple cores on a desktop/laptop , when Windows 7 (and probably Win8 ) and Windows applications are written for a single core cpu ?

Max Norris said,
You're kidding, right?

No I am not. Show me code from any part of Win7 or any application, were the various code parts are written to redirect and run on different cores.

alexalex said,
Anyone care to explain what good are multiple cores on a desktop/laptop , when Windows 7 (and probably Win8 ) and Windows applications are written for a single core cpu ?

These would be server-class CPUs.

alexalex said,
No I am not.

So, Windows and Windows applications are completely in the dark when it comes to multicore processing? So aside from a ton of articles being returned from Google about how Windows 7 was specifically tuned to take advantage of multiple cores, the various API and OS options designed for dealing with multiple cores, various settings to specify core affinity and whatnot.. never mind that a fair portion of software that's more complicated than a notepad clone tends to show clear multicore usage.. care to quote any sources on this?

alexalex said,

No I am not. Show me code from any part of Win7 or any application, were the various code parts are written to redirect and run on different cores.

Wow. Dumbest comment ever? Try using a single core processor after using a multi-core one then come back and tell us if there was any performance difference.

alexalex said,
No I am not. Show me code from any part of Win7 or any application, were the various code parts are written to redirect and run on different cores.

How about just taking 30 seconds to even research. Just for example, look up the various API bits dealing with this. If say you're messing with dotNET for example, look up ProcessThead.ProcessorAffinity. Look ma, dealing with code parts running on different cores. Damn trolls are just making it up as they go now, sad.

alexalex said,
No I am not. Show me code from any part of Win7 or any application, were the various code parts are written to redirect and run on different cores.
Robocopy /MT:#
Boom, multithreaded code shown. Where's my prize?

cybertimber2008 said,
Robocopy /MT:#
Boom, multithreaded code shown. Where's my prize?

Why do you all insist on feeding that troll?

Yes, Windows IS multi-core and yes, some programs are multi-core, but in essence he's right; VERY few applications make use of multiple cores, let alone 10. You're all noobs.

sbdb said,
Yes, Windows IS multi-core and yes, some programs are multi-core, but in essence he's right; VERY few applications make use of multiple cores, let alone 10. You're all noobs.

The apps don't need to make use of multiple cores so long as the OS can, and spread the load across the different cores. I think right here is where we have an example of someone espousing the idea that if it's of no use to me, then it must be of no use to anyone else

sbdb said,
Yes, Windows IS multi-core and yes, some programs are multi-core, but in essence he's right; VERY few applications make use of multiple cores, let alone 10. You're all noobs.

10 huh? IE, Chrome, FireFox all make use of multi threading, Windows UI and Kernel make use of multithreading.... Adobe Premier, Adobe Photoshop make use of it.... Visual Studio makes use of it, Microsoft's C++, C#, VB.NET build compilers all make use of it...... there are numbers of games that make use of it now, gawd I could go on and on with the list, but since apparently no one uses it I shouldn't

alexalex said,
Anyone care to explain what good are multiple cores on a desktop/laptop , when Windows 7 (and probably Win8 ) and Windows applications are written for a single core cpu ?

That's the funniest thing I've read for awhile, and I thank you for it!

But as others before me have said, you are quite clearly wrong. Also, more cores just means Windows has more resources to balance programs. Even if you have Chrome, Photoshop, WLM, and other various programs going, it just means that Windows will stay responsive. Not to mention that if your using Photoshop (as an example), the difference between using 1 core and 2 cores could be anything from waiting for 5 minutes rather than 10 and so on.

alexalex said,
Anyone care to explain what good are multiple cores on a desktop/laptop , when Windows 7 (and probably Win8 ) and Windows applications are written for a single core cpu ?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

alexalex said,

No I am not. Show me code from any part of Win7 or any application, were the various code parts are written to redirect and run on different cores.

GO HOME AND PACK AWAY YOUR DUAL/QUAD CORES, PEOPLE.
THIS MANS CAUGHT US OUT.

It'll still be slower than anything Intel would have out at the same time.

"10 core CPU has the rather appropriate code name "Piledriver""
How is that an "appropriate" name for a processor?

ahhell said,
It'll still be slower than anything Intel would have out at the same time.

"10 core CPU has the rather appropriate code name "Piledriver""
How is that an "appropriate" name for a processor?

Like I said before, it's useful for Holographic Porn.

"Help me Obi 'Wang' Kenobi, you're my only hope."

ahhell said,
It'll still be slower than anything Intel would have out at the same time.

"10 core CPU has the rather appropriate code name "Piledriver""
How is that an "appropriate" name for a processor?

I think the point of getting an AMD over Intel is the price:performance ratio

Anywho, a pile driver is a machine for driving massive spikes/beams/what ever (a pile) into the ground, the purpose can be for various things, one of which is structural foundations. The amount of force needed for a pile driver to do its thing is massive, and boy do yoou not want to be under one when its hammer strikes. The computational power of this CPU is likewise supposed to be massive and crushing

Sraf said,

I think the point of getting an AMD over Intel is the price:performance ratio

Anywho, a pile driver is a machine for driving massive spikes/beams/what ever (a pile) into the ground, the purpose can be for various things, one of which is structural foundations. The amount of force needed for a pile driver to do its thing is massive, and boy do yoou not want to be under one when its hammer strikes. The computational power of this CPU is likewise supposed to be massive and crushing

Slower than Intel in the *cough* benchmarks that weight everything an AMD CPU is good at lower than everything that an Intel CPU is good at (like Bapco Sysmark) thereby skewing the results, or in benchmarks where there are no AMD drivers (like PC Mark), or in benchmarks that artificially add tesselation offscreen just to slow down AMD graphics cards... and so on.

Intel has to cheat to make people think they are better.

WAR-DOG said,
When will we be using all those cores in our applications and games? When will we fully move to 64bit?

I would guess that next gen consoles will finally get us some good multicore support

WAR-DOG said,
When will we be using all those cores in our applications and games? When will we fully move to 64bit?

I've been wishing for the complete move to 64 bit ever since the release of xp_64 but it seems the world still likes 32 bit.

James Riske said,

I've been wishing for the complete move to 64 bit ever since the release of xp_64 but it seems the world still likes 32 bit.

I joined the 64 bit crowd a couple of weeks ago and would also like to see more 64 bit software.

WAR-DOG said,
When will we be using all those cores in our applications and games? When will we fully move to 64bit?
Those of us who use Linux 64bit are putting to use all that cpu power I have a 1090T and use Linux Mint 11 64 bit it's so fast I can have windows xp virtualbox and windows 7 bootup in another virtualbox in less than a minute all within Linux Mint and at the same time be switching desktops via compiz 3d and compiling a kernel and using handbrake to convert a video etc... More cores are always put to full use in a Linux 64bit environment.

gzAsher said,
What happened to Intel's 80 core processor?

its no 80 cores like you think of today, its more like the cell chip with cores broken down to do very small tasks, they are still working on it.. IBM has a chip that has 128 cores

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,

its no 80 cores like you think of today, its more like the cell chip with cores broken down to do very small tasks, they are still working on it.. IBM has a chip that has 128 cores

They're still busy de-optimising their compilers and weighting benchmarks against AMD, so they haven't gotten around to making that thing stable yet.

10 is all very well. But, if Spinal Tap taught us anything, it is that 11 is one more than 10, and therefore better. So, I'll pass.

mcbazza said,
10 is all very well. But, if Spinal Tap taught us anything, it is that 11 is one more than 10, and therefore better. So, I'll pass.

LMAO!

mcbazza said,
10 is all very well. But, if Spinal Tap taught us anything, it is that 11 is one more than 10, and therefore better. So, I'll pass.

Ours go to 11.

cybertimber2008 said,
F@H and Virtualization requires it!
I do some virtualization at home, but i never virtualized 10 machines...

LauRoman said,
I do some virtualization at home, but i never virtualized 10 machines...

It's not about virtualising 10 machines, but about adding more cores to the virtual machines. At work I use a 4 core machine and 2 of those cores go to the virtual machine, 2 to the host operating system. If I had 6 cores here like I do at home, I would give 4 to the virtual machine and 2 to the host operating system (because all the developer tools run under the virtual machine, so that's where all my work actually occurs).