Server Help :: View topic - One Processor to Rule Them All

Server Help

Trash Talk - One Processor to Rule Them All

K' - Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:58 am
Post subject: One Processor to Rule Them All

One Processor to Rule Them All
One Processor to find them massive multi-cores.
One Processor to bring them 80 all and in the darkness bind them.

So it would seem that Intel has set its sights onto bringing forth the eclypse.
Specifically, blocking (the) sun - sun microsystems that is and their niagara/ultraSPARC T1.

Intel pledges within five years to dish out the motherlode.

Dr Brain - Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:11 pm
Post subject:

That's it? Moore's law says we should get it way sooner than 5 years.

Dr Brain - Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:13 pm
Post subject:

By the way, can't you post this junk elsewhere? Yes, I know it's trash talk, and I'm not saying it belongs in some other forum, I'm just wondering if you could stop posting here at all.

Bak - Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:40 pm
Post subject:

having 80 cores isn't much faster than having just a few, since most programs aren't coded with massive parallelism in mind, especially since most of the processing is almost exclusively limited to just a small portion of the code (the 90/10 rule). I predict the only "teraflop" here will be this processor.

Cyan~Fire - Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:51 pm
Post subject:

Haha, typical Intel. Pentiums are like the Hummers of CPUs. Who really takes their Hummers off-road?

CypherJF - Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:11 pm
Post subject:

I like that analogy Cyan...

K' - Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:42 am
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

Or, you can use it for any workstation that's highly procession-dependant, such as graphics, animation, simulation, AI, and so on.
And with such being available, programs that already do this can lift some of the limits set in place due to the inherant limitations of the hardware.
And programs such as games can grow up to make use of this new hardware (and who the hell wants gfx/ai cards anyway? the cpu cores can and should be the one to do it all).

shardz - Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:33 am
Post subject:

Yeah, I mean, just look at the popularity of 64 bit CPUs and ALL that software available for them...

K' - Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:45 am
Post subject:

Ye of little faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DetnKgOxrSI&mode=related&search=

Bak - Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:14 pm
Post subject:

Quote:

Or, you can use it for any workstation that's highly procession-dependant, such as graphics, animation, simulation, AI, and so on.

No you can't, that's the point I was making. Lots of these, such as a simulation, depend heavily on what was calculated earlier so being able to do 80 things at once isn't any faster than doing one thing at a time. You need to do them in order, so 79 of your processors will be waiting for the calculations of one to finish, then another single processor will take over. Obviously there are some applications where massive parallelism is useful, AI for one, but it's not going to be as revolutionary as you make it out to be. Hell, MIT made the Connection Machine in the 1980's with over 65,000 processors and that never caught on save for niche applications.

SamHughes - Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:59 pm
Post subject:

Bak wrote:

Obviously there are some applications where massive parallelism is useful

Servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers servers.

And eigenvalues.

And simulations can be done parallelly if parts of the simulation interact over small boundaries (such as, for simple example's sake, Conway's game of life).

But yeah, the overall effect is that yeah, processing times will be smaller.

Bak wrote:

Hell, MIT made the Connection Machine in the 1980's with over 65,000 processors and that never caught on save for niche applications.

Well, that's because it was a big expensive supercomputer, and generally, supercomputers are used for niche applications..

Quan Chi2 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:25 pm
Post subject: Re: One Processor to Rule Them All

K' wrote:

How much would something like this cost?

K' - Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:10 am
Post subject:

The entire financial capitals of you, your cousins, your future kids, their future grandsons, your ancestorial line to the side of your father and the national deficient of New York?

Also, to clarify to people like Bak, who seem to be a bit of a bok-ish on the matter: This isn't about getting faster clock speeds, it's about allowing delegation of responsibilities (read: tasking) between the various cores, so you don't get one core choking on a bottleneck.
This allows to break down the software onto compartmentalized stracture, call it departments or components of it, and assign each to a core of its own, thus allowing in general faster execution of HEAVY PROCESSING REQUIRING TASKS which otherwise would take much longer as one core be attempting to do it all.
Ex. Sophisticated games utilizing dynamic living AI, physics, etc. and astrophysical or biological models of entire an system and its mechanism in operation.

Dr Brain - Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:32 pm
Post subject:

K' wrote:

national deficient of New York

New York isn't a nation.

And you're talking out of your ass about parallelism.

K' - Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:43 pm
Post subject:

Well, it's a state.
I think?

Well, you can talk out of your ass.
I'll be setting forth to enjoy it.
Your interest was never in these areas to begin with, anyway.

Dr Brain - Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:09 pm
Post subject:

K' wrote:

Well, it's a state.
I think?

Yes, the US is a federalized government, but gramatically, NY isn't a nation. Otherwise I would have said the "the US are a..." rather than "the US is a...", like I did

K' wrote:

Your interest was never in these areas to begin with, anyway.

Glad you let me know, I was under a different impression.