Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip

John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:37:40 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 14 May 2008 07:09:57 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<t8sl24dnv1gga7v38sormu0bvc6dd1eg3d@xxxxxxx>:

Dvorak has vague inklings as to what's going on:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2129596,00.asp

Not really, first the 4 TB is full with HD recordings in a day or so.
Look up HD editing
'Clean disks?" whats he running windows?
You tube streaming o na separate core?
What a waste of a super fast powerful core.
Webcam? Even less bandwidth.

Twittering, blogs, yes you _REALLY_ need 10 extra cores for that.
The man is an idiot.

WHOAAAAAA!
And that Intel guy is a salesman.
Now that they are faster then AMD all of the sudden speed is important.

I have to admit that I was more pessimistic about Intel, but hey, maybe I will
be proven right once they have 80 cores with 70 idle..

So you and Mr Brown agree that computing has already reached its
pinnacle of perfection, and the trillion-transistor chips with
hundreds of CPU's will always run Windows, and the individual CPU's
will always multitask, because that's efficient.

Well, since absolutely nothing in technology has changed in the last
20 years, I suppose it's safe to assume nothing will change in the
next 20 either.

In most systems most tasks are idle - but occasionally you will need
to do something that takes a *lot* of CPU power. E.g. media
transcoding, recompiling the linux kernel, FPGA synthesis, video
editing, ray tracing.

Your "lots of little cores" scheme is not much use in this scenario,
since all the near-idle tasks could have been done in a single
multitasking core anyway, and the (likely single) heavy duty task runs
*really slowly* on one of your little cores.

What is actually needed is a single core that is just about as fast as
possible. Only when it runs up against practical limits is it then
worth going to 2-core, 4-core etc. And you can then rewrite the "heavy
duty task" to split itself over multiple cores. But the most efficient
scheme would still be to have all the lightweight tasks on one of the
cores, and the single heavy duty program spread over the remainder.

And this is what we have.

--

John Devereux
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: up to 8
    ... John Larkin wrote: ... Very few people do HD video editing or nuclear arms simulation yet. ... more and more cores is a dead end road. ... processors, and even embedded processors, is more cores... ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: a dozen cpus on a chip
    ... John Larkin wrote: ... The problem is what to do with> 6 cores. ... unless they come up with a software solution that makes full use ... More cores make for more data contention. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: a dozen cpus on a chip
    ... John Larkin writes: ... Twittering, blogs, yes you _REALLY_ need 10 extra cores for that. ... and the single heavy duty program spread over the remainder. ... a massively multicore chip will be under-utilised if the ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: I guess Ill have to wind my own inductor, again
    ... John Larkin wrote: ... > permalloy powder, but a lot cheaper. ... I think Micrometals has an ... alot of fringing fields from my spacer-gapped cores wandering about my ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: a dozen cpus on a chip
    ... duty task" to split itself over multiple cores. ... and the single heavy duty program spread over the remainder. ... It can run HDTV or games at insane frame rates - we may see more 3D capable display hardware for gamers which will double the bandwidth requirement and that is probably the endgame - at least until some killer consumer app requiring an order of magnitude more CPU comes along. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)