How Many Processor Cores Are Enough?
|
From: Nick Maclaren on 10 Oct 2006 07:12 In article <1160477501.173323.39850(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "ranjit_mathews(a)yahoo.com" <ranjit_mathews(a)yahoo.com> writes: |> |> If your competitor ships a computer with a 1.6GHz processor and |> DDR2-533 RAM and you figure that they can get their processor to run at |> 3.2Gz by the time DDR3-1066 RAM becomes mainstream, you know they'll be |> able to compress or run a DOM parser about twice as fast, don't you? No. It's not what you don't know that causes the trouble, it's what you know that ain't so. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Dennis M. O'Connor on 10 Oct 2006 07:53 <ranjit_mathews(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... > No, since for a given design, if you know ops/GHz, you can estimate > what the ops would be at (say) 50% more GHz. No, you can't, unless you can somehow make all the other components in the system go faster too. You don't seem to know much about computer architecture. -- Dennis M. O'Connor dmoc(a)primenet.com
From: toby on 10 Oct 2006 09:06 Jon Forrest wrote: > Today I read that we're going to get quad-core processors > in 2007, and 80-core processors in 5 years. ... > Where do you think the point of diminishing returns might > be? Run Windows and find out sooner :) > > Jon Forrest
From: ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com on 10 Oct 2006 11:53 Dennis M. O'Connor wrote: > <ranjit_mathews(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... > > No, since for a given design, if you know ops/GHz, you can estimate > > what the ops would be at (say) 50% more GHz. > > No, you can't, unless you can somehow make all > the other components in the system go faster too. Naturally. Would you expect Gene Amdahl or someone like him to build a new machine with higher compute performance but the same I/O? He would scale up everything unless the new machine is targeted at a different problem. > You don't seem to know much about > computer architecture. > -- > Dennis M. O'Connor dmoc(a)primenet.com
From: Eugene Miya on 10 Oct 2006 11:57
In article <1160495632.089615.225300(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, ranjit_mathews(a)yahoo.com <ranjit_mathews(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Dennis M. O'Connor wrote: >> <ranjit_mathews(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... >> > No, since for a given design, if you know ops/GHz, you can estimate >> > what the ops would be at (say) 50% more GHz. >> >> No, you can't, unless you can somehow make all >> the other components in the system go faster too. > >Naturally. Would you expect Gene Amdahl or someone like him to build a >new machine with higher compute performance but the same I/O? He would >scale up everything unless the new machine is targeted at a different >problem. Gene spends most of his days playing golf. He is not a fan of parallelism, and he would only implement it if he knew how. >> You don't seem to know much about >> computer architecture. >> -- >> Dennis M. O'Connor dmoc(a)primenet.com Perhaps true. -- |