65nm news from Intel

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yousuf Khan
  • Start date Start date
Felger Carbon said:
We have long had desktop SMP available. Question: what legacy
software runs faster on two cores (whether on one or two chips) than
on one? Answer: none.
Click to expand...

Anything run with X*, ie almost everything in existance.

Old tests I did long ago showed 30% increase was the minimum you
should expect.

* `with X' includes xterms and the like.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
 
You may htinf the second is "cheap", but I don't. The second CPU and the
board that dgoes with it are certainly *not* "cheap".


Hmm, TF-1 was what, a decade ot two ago?
Click to expand...

Yep, it shows how long it has been cheap.


Ah, back to the /360. ;-)
Yep.

Note that we do have GPUs and DMA masters. SMP doesn't solve all ills.
Click to expand...

true.
--
 
I will use the TF-1 as an example. CPUs weren't boards.
There were multiple CPUs on a chip, so most of the pattern was reusable.
The development costs (board/chipset/BIOS) have to be recaptured across
fewer units sold, so will cost more. Look at the prices of boards with
on-board SCSI, for another example. OTOH, it doesn't cost all *that* much
more to throw another core on a chip.
Click to expand...

If you are seeking economies of scale in parallel computing, it doesn't
work well that way. The redundance works toward scale economies.
The problem is that the infrastructure does not last a long.

The desk top is not a likely near term place to find most
multiprocesssors as a final product. Dual processors are marginal for
most uses. In the numeric area, you want to see performance improvements
of factors of 8-16 if not more, not 2-4.

--
 
Back
Top