NVIDIA�s Tesla T10P Blurs Some Lines
in [FPGA]
|
Prev: jordan kicks supplier paypal payment $28/pairs cnbbiz2008@hotmail.com ( http://photo.163.com/photos/huayuexiehang/118447112/ )
Next: Error while doing 'Generate Netlist' in xilinx 9.2i
From: Symon on 19 Jun 2008 05:37 Jeff Cunningham wrote: > > Speaking of FPGA alternatives, this recently caught my eye. Don't know > much about it, but it sure looks cool: > > http://www.tilera.com/products/processors.php > > -Jeff Jeff, Where have I seen that before? Ah yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer Syms.
From: Jonathan Bromley on 19 Jun 2008 07:04 On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:37:14 +0100, "Symon" wrote: >Where have I seen that before? >Ah yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer And now, for bonus points, put an [X] against any of the following reasons if you think it helps to explain why the Transputer was a market flop... [ ] it was at least two decades ahead of its time [ ] it was about one decade ahead of the technology needed to make it powerful enough to be competitive [ ] it was based on robust, sound academic theory [ ] it had a clean, effective, readable programming language that was not C [ ] it was a British design [ ] the software community was even more clueless about how to make use of multiple scalable compute resources in the late 1970s than it is today [ ] when presented with a model that permits parallel processing to be spectacularly efficient, the software community retreats into its standard cosy set of assumptions that serial execution is sure to be faster and more efficient, and therefore Concurrent Is Bad, mainly because it isn't C For maximum credit, write a 10,000 word dissertation explaining why the social dynamics of the software community will ensure the early death of anything that looks like a general-purpose, tightly-coupled network of compute nodes. Not that I'm bitter, or anything like that :-) -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd., 22 Market Place, Ringwood, BH24 1AW, UK jonathan.bromley(a)MYCOMPANY.com http://www.MYCOMPANY.com The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.
From: Brian Drummond on 19 Jun 2008 09:27 On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:04:16 +0100, Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley(a)MYCOMPANY.com> wrote: >On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:37:14 +0100, "Symon" wrote: > >>Where have I seen that before? >>Ah yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer > >And now, for bonus points, put an [X] against any >of the following reasons if you think it helps to >explain why the Transputer was a market flop... > >[ ] it was at least two decades ahead of its time >[ ] it was about one decade ahead of the technology > needed to make it powerful enough to be competitive >[X] it was based on robust, sound academic theory >[X] it had a clean, effective, readable programming > language that was not C >[X] it was a British design worse than that: it was a Government funded design under a government that didn't fund technology... >[ ] the software community was even more clueless about > how to make use of multiple scalable compute resources > in the late 1970s than it is today Definitely not this one. as well as O***m, they came up with Ada, where you can: create a task type; create an array of tasks of that type; loop over the array starting the tasks; loop over the array collecting the results; in pretty much no more code than the above. Nowadays, C++ has given the SW community ONE positive thing: the old argument that Ada is too large and complex to be usable no longer holds water... But count the hand-wringing woe-is-me stories about the difficulty of parallelism and the massive new collaborations to solve the problem on one hand, and the mentions of Ada (or O***m) on the other... >[X] when presented with a model that permits parallel > processing to be spectacularly efficient, the > software community retreats into its standard cosy > set of assumptions that serial execution is sure > to be faster and more efficient, and therefore > Concurrent Is Bad, mainly because it isn't C > >For maximum credit, write a 10,000 word dissertation >explaining why the social dynamics of the software community >will ensure the early death of anything that looks like >a general-purpose, tightly-coupled network of compute nodes. > >Not that I'm bitter, or anything like that :-) The funny thing about the transputer (from the VERY little I did on it at the time; paper only since I couldn't afford one as a hobbyist) is that there was a time window when it appeared to be the fastest single processor available, (ignoring 3-chip solutions) even without its hooks for parallelism... but that got overshadowed by the parallelism. If it had had an MMU, it could have made a nice Unix workstation (or single-chip Lilith, or...) - Brian
From: Symon on 19 Jun 2008 20:13 MikeWhy wrote: > "Dave" <dave(a)comteck.com> wrote in message > news:f008$485ae84d$40b83d5e$25934(a)COMTECK.COM... >> Jeff Cunningham wrote: >>> >>> Speaking of FPGA alternatives, this recently caught my eye. Don't >>> know much about it, but it sure looks cool: >>> >>> http://www.tilera.com/products/processors.php >> >> Availability? Price? > > Nvidia. Google. > > Yes. Cheap. MikeWhat?
From: Symon on 20 Jun 2008 04:54
MikeWhy wrote: > "Symon" <symon_brewer(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:g3esnp$l2b$1(a)aioe.org... >> MikeWhy wrote: >>> "Dave" <dave(a)comteck.com> wrote in message >>> news:f008$485ae84d$40b83d5e$25934(a)COMTECK.COM... >>>> Jeff Cunningham wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Speaking of FPGA alternatives, this recently caught my eye. Don't >>>>> know much about it, but it sure looks cool: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.tilera.com/products/processors.php >>>> >>>> Availability? Price? >>> >>> Nvidia. Google. >>> >>> Yes. Cheap. >> >> MikeWhat? > > Second cousin. > > (Full initials. Also a pronunciation aid. You get my age and you'll > find the dimunitive inappropriate also.) I thought your second cousin might explain what Nvidia had to do with Tilera. I see another branch of the thread has cleared that up! :-) Cheers, Syms. |