bit-tech.net

Intel buys parallelism companies

Intel buys parallelism companies

Intel's purchase of parallelism experts Rapidmind and Cilk gives it instant expertise in developing good code for multi-core processors.

Intel is continuing its to expand its software expertise with the acquisition of two separate software companies in the last month.

According to CNet, the chip giant has signed papers for the outright acquisition of two companies within the last month: Cilk and Rapidmind. Both companies are an excellent fit for Intel, as they specialise in the development of efficient code for multi-core and multi-processor systems - something Intel, with its up-coming ranges of six core and higher processors, is keen on encouraging.

Intel's director of marketing and sales James Reinders used a 'phone interview with CNet to accuse what he calls "traditional applications, ones we use everyday" of "not exploiting parallelism [the presence of multiple logical processing cores] - at least not to the full extent." With the vast majority of processors offered by Intel and its rival AMD offering at least two logical - if not physical - processing cores, that's something the company would like to change.

Accordingly, Reinders sees his company's latest acquisitions as a way to encourage application developers to take advantage of the benefits of parallelism. Users of Intel's Parallel Studio could be the first to reap the benefits of the company's latest spending spree, with Reinders stating that Cilk's MIT-developed technology for allowing single-threaded applications to be upgraded to take advantage of multiple cores is likely to be added to the toolkit sooner rather than later.

Whilst both of the companies purchased were on the small side - with fewer than 50 employees each - they were regarded as being at the top of their game, and aren't likely to have come cheap. Intel, however, is keeping quiet on just how much money it has spent in a still-struggling technology market.

Do you believe that ubiquitous parallelism is the way forward, or are you struggling to see the advantage for your average browser or word processor being able to run on multiple cores simultaneously? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

11 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
MaverickWill 24th August 2009, 10:16 Quote
Intel trying to persuade me I didn't waste money on an i7? Tempting read...

FWIW, I didn't. Cakewalk Sonar Producer is heavily multi-threaded. Though it's a pricey way to the top if you wanna rock and roll... ;)
Star*Dagger 24th August 2009, 10:40 Quote
As a PC Gamer I heartily encourage this trend. If normal apps are getting the multi-core treatment then games will 1) have a base of developer who know multi-core/threaded code 2) benefit from said coding. This means more utilization of our quad (and beyond) core processors. Kudos to intel.

Yours in multi-core Plasma,
Star*Dagger
perplekks45 24th August 2009, 12:17 Quote
Multi-threading is the way to go. If Intel can deliver better support for it AMD will be happy too. In the end, customers will be happier too.

Win-Win, eh?
amacieli 24th August 2009, 12:28 Quote
Anyone know if database engines like Oracle and SQL Server are fully multi-threaded?
V3ctor 24th August 2009, 12:56 Quote
I still don't know why I have 4 cores... Still don't use them... Q6600 ftw... =)
Elton 24th August 2009, 19:09 Quote
At one point though wouldn't there be a wall like the frequency wall? I mean it costs quite a bit to produce programs that are multi-core..

Well at least a bit longer.
Aracos 24th August 2009, 23:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
At one point though wouldn't there be a wall like the frequency wall? I mean it costs quite a bit to produce programs that are multi-core..

Well at least a bit longer.

Whenever I look into quad core supporting emulators I always find out that a good 90% that support 2 cores don't support any more than that. They say allowing use of more than 2 cores would mean a dramatic change in their code so I think if people got over that barrier then if you can support an extra 3 cores why should an extra 31 make a difference? I'm going on intel's working 32 core processor btw.
Elton 25th August 2009, 00:37 Quote
An extra 31 would take well..More time to code for it, and time is money. Eventually it would be far too inefficient,

Imagine a 100+ core procesor..
ychamp 25th August 2009, 06:48 Quote
@Elton

I don't believe the programming will work like that, once you optimize your code to run in multi threading I believe the changes will be as small as changing the number of cores hat the software will work with in the code without actually having to recode anything else.
Elton 25th August 2009, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ychamp
@Elton

I don't believe the programming will work like that, once you optimize your code to run in multi threading I believe the changes will be as small as changing the number of cores hat the software will work with in the code without actually having to recode anything else.

Perhaps, I guess my perception of code isn't too good on all levels then. ;)
Landy_Ed 13th September 2009, 20:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by amacieli
Anyone know if database engines like Oracle and SQL Server are fully multi-threaded?

Dunno if this was responded to, but quite definitely yes. So is Teradata.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums

More About...