David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on November 18, 2013 3:03 am wrote:
> This article analyzes the options available for the Knights Landing
> CPU core and explains why Intel’s existing cores are a poor fit for the target workloads, concluding
> that the most likely outcome is a new custom core for Knights Landing.
>
> http://www.realworldtech.com/knights-landing-cpu-speculation/

Minor nit-pick: Knight's Corner has 62 physical cores, not 64:

... the "Knights Corner" chip ... has 62 cores. ... El Reg had guessed it would have 64 cores, in keeping with a good clean base-two number, but that's not how it played out.

-- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/12/intel_xeon_phi_coprocessor_launch/

Knights Corner (KC) has a most unusual core count, 62, and the reason behind that binary unfriendly number is decidedly non-technical. Why 62 cores instead of 64? That’s what fit on the die. No, we are not joking, if you look at the die shot above, most of the repeated units all have eight cores around a central unit. Seven of these blocks have four cores on each side, two sets per horizontal row. The lowest row has an unidentified unit in the middle that takes up enough room to crowd out a couple of cores.

-- http://semiaccurate.com/2012/11/12/a-look-at-the-xeon-phi-cards-and-hardware/

(Do we have any figures for Xeon Phi's expected sales? I'm slightly surprised that you think Intel could justify doing a complete new core for it.)