How Many Processor Cores Are Enough?
|
From: Eugene Miya on 3 Oct 2006 11:45 In article <efgr7e$6oa$1(a)gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Nick Maclaren <nmm1(a)cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >When are we going to see them, then? >> We? "What do you mean 'we?' white man?" --Tonto In article <1159845955.240361.257740(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, <jsavard(a)ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >That doesn't count. >Of course, it still means they *exist*. Bring up questions of trees falling in forests? People could only guess what the first computers were like. >But when is the world going to >see them is a legitimate question. You have to remember to keep the important keyword, PIM, in case threading gets cut. When? Well. That's hard to say. It may be never the rate the Crusade is going. Certainly people in the field have seen them. One of the former posters most pissed at Nick likely saw them. The first were integrated into preexisting boxes of manufacturers you have already heard of as well as lesser known more expensive packages. But the scale and degree and current numbers I have no idea now. Museums only get access to things in some cases ages, decades after they are done. They supposedily just look any other rectangular box. --
From: Nick Maclaren on 3 Oct 2006 11:51 In article <45228599$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes: |> |> You have to remember to keep the important keyword, PIM, in case |> threading gets cut. It will be amusing to see what meaning that term attaches itself to, assuming that some such technologies arrive in the general market. |> When? Well. That's hard to say. It may be never the rate the Crusade |> is going. What Crusade? I know of only one current one and it is OT. Let's not bring it up again. |> Certainly people in the field have seen them. One of the |> former posters most pissed at Nick likely saw them. The first were |> integrated into preexisting boxes of manufacturers you have already |> heard of as well as lesser known more expensive packages. |> But the scale and degree and current numbers I have no idea now. |> Museums only get access to things in some cases ages, decades after |> they are done. They supposedily just look any other rectangular box. Until and unless someone is prepared to describe what he saw, it is hard to tell whether what they saw WAS just a random, off-the-shelf computer box containing a lot of hot air. After all, could the person who told THEM "this box is full of PIMs" be telling porkies? Nah. Nobody EVER does that. More seriously, those of us with Half a Clue (as well as the people who are inside the business) have been saying for two decades that there has never been any difficulty for the major companies to make such things; the problem is and always has been to turn them into something that can be used effectively by mere mortals for typical tasks. And it is the latter aspect that is interesting, not whether there are a few specialised systems built to amuse the spooks. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Del Cecchi on 3 Oct 2006 13:24 already5chosen(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Del Cecchi wrote: > >>Well, if you count work applications there are many. SPICE. DRC/LVS, >>extraction, simulation....... >> >>That's why server farms were invented. >> >>del >> > > > How many of those are both > 1. Efficiently parallelizable > 2. But not embarrassingly parallel > Because for embarrassingly-parallel case multicore is no better than > SMP, except for the price and both multicore and SMP often no better > than distributed computation (clusters, MPP). > Some are and some aren't. But they can pretty much all use multiple processors or multiple threads one way or another. And as far as I am concerned, multicore isn't that much different than smp. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn?t necessarily represent IBM?s positions, strategies or opinions.?
From: Del Cecchi on 3 Oct 2006 13:28 Nick Maclaren wrote: > In article <45228599$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes: > |> > |> You have to remember to keep the important keyword, PIM, in case > |> threading gets cut. > > It will be amusing to see what meaning that term attaches itself to, > assuming that some such technologies arrive in the general market. > > |> When? Well. That's hard to say. It may be never the rate the Crusade > |> is going. > > What Crusade? I know of only one current one and it is OT. Let's > not bring it up again. > > |> Certainly people in the field have seen them. One of the > |> former posters most pissed at Nick likely saw them. The first were > |> integrated into preexisting boxes of manufacturers you have already > |> heard of as well as lesser known more expensive packages. > |> But the scale and degree and current numbers I have no idea now. > |> Museums only get access to things in some cases ages, decades after > |> they are done. They supposedily just look any other rectangular box. > > Until and unless someone is prepared to describe what he saw, it is > hard to tell whether what they saw WAS just a random, off-the-shelf > computer box containing a lot of hot air. After all, could the > person who told THEM "this box is full of PIMs" be telling porkies? > Nah. Nobody EVER does that. > > More seriously, those of us with Half a Clue (as well as the people who > are inside the business) have been saying for two decades that there has > never been any difficulty for the major companies to make such things; > the problem is and always has been to turn them into something that > can be used effectively by mere mortals for typical tasks. > > And it is the latter aspect that is interesting, not whether there are > a few specialised systems built to amuse the spooks. > > > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. And remember that if someone could make a convincing case that they would sell enough that there are folks who would bank roll them, and others (Like IBM E&TS :-) ) who would help them produce such a thing. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn?t necessarily represent IBM?s positions, strategies or opinions.?
From: Nick Maclaren on 3 Oct 2006 14:14
In article <4ofku7Fe91g3U3(a)individual.net>, Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> writes: |> > |> > More seriously, those of us with Half a Clue (as well as the people who |> > are inside the business) have been saying for two decades that there has |> > never been any difficulty for the major companies to make such things; |> > the problem is and always has been to turn them into something that |> > can be used effectively by mere mortals for typical tasks. |> |> And remember that if someone could make a convincing case that they |> would sell enough that there are folks who would bank roll them, and |> others (Like IBM E&TS :-) ) who would help them produce such a thing. Precisely. I can provide a convincing case that they would sell, but not enough - indeed, I was having an almost identical conversation with someone from IBM 20 years ago :-( Regards, Nick Maclaren. |