Intel is developing a 48-core processor for smartphones and tablets

let me know when a phone is able to do 6-digit poly 3d modeling, REAL video editing, high res multilayer photoshop editing, and do this all with a speedy good for multitasking OS.

All I want to know, is can this run Crysis?

I just hope it isn't the Larrabee team...

Do you really think that in 10 years, the hardware won't be capable? Look at processing power 10 years ago compared to now. Look at mobile power 10 years ago compared to now.

But, here's the rub - by the time 10 years rolls around, what you want to do will have grown exponentially, just like the processing power. So, will a phone completely replace desktops? Hard to say, probably not. But, will that tiny processing package be more powerful than any desktop we have in use right now? Most likely. Just like today, most "power users" who actually need to do the stuff you are using as examples will have dedicated desktop powerplants to crunch the numbers. But, don't flatter yourself into thinking that you (and me, as I need that kind of power too) are in any kind of majority - 95% of the population will probably be just fine with the flat out power that little mobile package provides, in 10 years.

I think everyone here saying "oh, but programs aren't even quad-core capable today" are looking at it wrong.

Such a phone would function more like a current server, than a client OS. The whole point of the 48 cores is to multitask lots of things at once - not run a single app at warp speed over all 48 cores.

As current hardware is pretty limiting, the whole design and purpose of a cellphone has to change to accommodate the extra CPU power. Think something along the lines of Windows phone and the live tiles - only each tile is updated in real-time in the background.

What they need is to increase the speed of the processor. Intel isn't even in the phone market now. Why don't they increase ghz again?

8 core processor for PC is still new, now they're developing 48-cores processor on smartphone and tablets? from 8 (PC) to 48 (smartphone/tablet) that's what we call it quantum leap in technological advancement

48-cores huh? This sounds like Single-chip Cloud Computer that Intel has been working on for about 4 years or so. Maybe they just managed to shrink it small enough to be useful in phones or tablets and refocused its use.

---> Guys... Did you miss the "ready in 5 to 10 years" part?

unfortunately, you'll see plenty much of these people nowadays. Some of them trolled others without reading carefully, don't know what happen with their eyes or maybe they just can't read.

Where is the improvement in just your overclocking? Sure you're processing a lot faster, but also note the larger toll it is on a battery. Sure in 5-10 years batteries will improve most likely, still how is a higher clock speed useful? Ever note how even a blazing fast PC at current core count, will eventually choke trying to process too much? That's the reason for the extra dense core structure, so you can multi-task without loss of performance.

I might be slightly wrong here, but doesn't a quad-core usually beat a dual-core? When it comes down to multi-tasking, dual-cores eventually struggle. Throw in a HT and it can still perform, but you see the point I hope. Cores do matter in the long term goal, video especially can really use those cores. So sure a speed boost can help, even when it's a dual vs quad kind of competition. Just eventually speed alone won't matter, and the system starts to slowly die under it's work load.

"Oh no technology is advancing and improving! I better complain!"
Seriously guys?

Nothing's overkill.

If I could connect a high powered phone to my 23" monitor with keyboard and mouse support, through some kind of dock whilst having a choice of my favorite OS, and then having the ability to play BF3 level games. I would be happy!

..because Quad-core is too mainstream... lol

As Intel gets behind in the mobile market, losing its position quickly, they came up with this lame idea to boost public's attention to themselves.

The article, of course, is absurd, same as the idea itself. Our desktops fail to take full advantage of 8-core systems, nevermind 12-core ones that one gets from Intel today (counting the Hyper-Threading).

I am very sure this isn't even standard Intel R&D making this, it seems like Intel's Tera-Scale R&D Program which has been working on things like this for years now. Their entire goal since they started was to make CPUs that can scale to huge amounts of cores (I think 1,000 cores is a goal for them) and this might just be a side thing for them. As for software, well if the hardware isn't seen as coming eventually then why would software makers make their software work with many cores? This is proof of concept stuff that will lead the way for better OSes eventually that can make use of all these cores.

Why? Seems a bit over the top.

Maybe they've decided to take the AMD route: MOAR CORES!

I have 16 threads (8 hyper thread cores) on my workstation. It's kinda silly unless you're running threaded applications because otherwise I might as well just have 1 core. But if Windows could dynamically assign processes to threads I could see a benefit.

Need moar cores for playing crysis!!