| Author |
Message |
K'
You can win any war if you start a year early
Gender:
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Posts: 271
Location: Southtown
Offline
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:58 am Post maybe stupid 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.
MOTHEROFGOD.jpg - 38.76 KB
File downloaded or viewed 196 time(s)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dr Brain
Flip-flopping like a wind surfer
Age:39
Gender:
Joined: Dec 01 2002
Posts: 3502
Location: Hyperspace
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:11 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
That's it? Moore's law says we should get it way sooner than 5 years.
_________________
Hyperspace Owner
Smong> so long as 99% deaths feel lame it will always be hyperspace to me
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Brain
Flip-flopping like a wind surfer
Age:39
Gender:
Joined: Dec 01 2002
Posts: 3502
Location: Hyperspace
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:13 pm Post maybe stupid 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bak
?ls -s
0 in
Age:26
Gender:
Joined: Jun 11 2004
Posts: 1826
Location: USA
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:40 pm Post maybe stupid 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.
_________________
SubSpace Discretion: A Third Generation SubSpace Client
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyan~Fire
I'll count you!
Age:37
Gender:
Joined: Jul 14 2003
Posts: 4608
Location: A Dream
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:51 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Haha, typical Intel. Pentiums are like the Hummers of CPUs. Who really takes their Hummers off-road?
_________________
This help is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. Cyan~Fire assumes no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
Wise men STILL seek Him.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CypherJF
I gargle nitroglycerin
Gender:
Joined: Aug 14 2003
Posts: 2582
Location: USA
Offline
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:11 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I like that analogy Cyan... 
_________________
Performance is often the art of cheating carefully. - James Gosling
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K'
You can win any war if you start a year early
Gender:
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Posts: 271
Location: Southtown
Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:42 am Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Bak wrote: | | 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. |
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).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shardz
Novice
Joined: Dec 30 2003
Posts: 26
Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:33 am Post maybe stupid Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Yeah, I mean, just look at the popularity of 64 bit CPUs and ALL that software available for them...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K'
You can win any war if you start a year early
Gender:
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Posts: 271
Location: Southtown
Offline
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bak
?ls -s
0 in
Age:26
Gender:
Joined: Jun 11 2004
Posts: 1826
Location: USA
Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:14 pm Post maybe stupid 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SamHughes
Server Help Squatter
Joined: Jun 30 2004
Posts: 251
Location: Greenwich
Offline
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:59 pm Post maybe stupid 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..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quan Chi2
Member of "Sexy Teenagers that Code" Group
Age:34
Gender:
Joined: Mar 25 2005
Posts: 860
Location: NYC
Offline
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:25 pm Post maybe stupid Post subject: Re: One Processor to Rule Them All |
|
|
|
|
| K' wrote: | 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.
|
How much would something like this cost?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K'
You can win any war if you start a year early
Gender:
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Posts: 271
Location: Southtown
Offline
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:10 am Post maybe stupid 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Brain
Flip-flopping like a wind surfer
Age:39
Gender:
Joined: Dec 01 2002
Posts: 3502
Location: Hyperspace
Offline
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:32 pm Post maybe stupid 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
K'
You can win any war if you start a year early
Gender:
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Posts: 271
Location: Southtown
Offline
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:43 pm Post maybe stupid 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Brain
Flip-flopping like a wind surfer
Age:39
Gender:
Joined: Dec 01 2002
Posts: 3502
Location: Hyperspace
Offline
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:09 pm Post maybe stupid 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Statistics
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
Murphy, how's this for a new avatar fo... 
