Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip

On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:50:42 +0100, John Devereux
<jdREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Of course this is what we have. But what will we have 10 or 20 years
out?

The GHz race is slowing down to a standstill; everybody is going to
more cores to get more mips per chip. The new PR race will be for
number of cores, not GHz.

FTTH is coming; soon a good hunk of the population will have gigabits
per second pouring into their houses.

Nanometer geometries are happening, but still with UV lithography. So
yields are going to suffer, and yields on a single-core CPU with a few
billion transistors won't be great.

Heat sinks probably won't get much better.

So, things will stay the same?

John



.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: a dozen cpus on a chip
    ... Twittering, blogs, yes you _REALLY_ need 10 extra cores for that. ... will always multitask, because that's efficient. ... to do something that takes a *lot* of CPU power. ... and the single heavy duty program spread over the remainder. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: a dozen cpus on a chip
    ... Twittering, blogs, yes you _REALLY_ need 10 extra cores for that. ... will always multitask, because that's efficient. ... to do something that takes a *lot* of CPU power. ... and the single heavy duty program spread over the remainder. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: a dozen cpus on a chip
    ... Twittering, blogs, yes you _REALLY_ need 10 extra cores for that. ... will always multitask, because that's efficient. ... to do something that takes a *lot* of CPU power. ... and the single heavy duty program spread over the remainder. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: a dozen cpus on a chip
    ... John Larkin writes: ... Twittering, blogs, yes you _REALLY_ need 10 extra cores for that. ... Your "lots of little cores" scheme is not much use in this scenario, ... and the single heavy duty program spread over the remainder. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)