Re: a dozen cpu's on a chip

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:44:47 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

It is interesting that 100% of the responses to my posts have been
destructive, and none additive. I sure hope you guys don't actually
work that way.

That is because your idea would not work as you intend and you are completely deaf to any criticism.

All I hear is criticism; nobody picks up on the fact that the chip
manufacturers *are* building or planning 32 and 64 core processors,
and that *might* really change the way OS's are designed.

It is more likely to change the way that application programs are designed to take advantage of the multicore environment. I doubt if home users will ever see boxes with N>4 in (apart from gamers).

What's really interesting here isn't the technology, it's the
psychology.

You don't seem to appreciate why your "idea" will not work.

The research work at Intel is on speculative multi-threading and other methods to allow multicore hardware to deliver real world performance increases in the future - a short review online at:

http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/research/speculative-threading-1205.htm

Intel has an impressive record of a) investing in the status quo and
b) wildly missing the mark on everything else. They sure have an
engineering mentality!

Speculative thread execution goes way beyond anything you have imagined.

It is ironic that of all the things that would improve home and office experience of computing some extra hardware acceleration for the JVM used by clientside web applications would be more use than multicore.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
.