Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 13:28:11 08/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 09, 2001 at 22:09:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 09, 2001 at 20:41:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 08, 2001 at 12:50:07, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>I don't think that xx86 --> Pentium range makes a good choice for computers with >>>(very) large numbers of processors. IMO, large numbers of processors represents >>>the best future option for increasing computer power in a cost-effective way. >> >>Have to disagree directly. No one can afford so many processors, >>so much transport costs, so many risks, such a big power bill. >> >>Easier is a single processor being way faster and pressed cheaply > >The math doesn't work. For any single processor you build, I will take The math works perfectly for what i said. For intel or AMD it's easier to press 1 unit and sell it for 1000 dollar than it is to press 2 units with a complex bridge in between and sell it for 1000 dollar. That math will always be the same whatever statement you make. For a manufacturer making a faster processor is smarter than making the current sucking chip parallel. Of course we as end users will keep on buying duals, that's a different discussion which has nothing to with it here. The question whether in future we will see very cheap 16 processor shared memory machines, that's very doubtful. Way more logical is a 16 times more powerful CPU! Best regards, Vincent >two of 'em and make a dual for less than 2x the cost. And I will be twice >as fast for that <2x cost. Ask intel what it will cost you today if you want >them to build you a 4ghz processor. Hint: You won't get it for 2x the cost >of a 2ghz processor. You won't get it for 10X. You won't even get it for >100X. > >SMP is here to stay, from an economics point of view. > > > > >> >>>How a good multiprocessor chip can become a new industry standard right now is >>>difficult to see. >>> >>>One way it could possibly happen is if ordinary people stopped buying power >>>machines and went for cheap ones (a sensible choice IMO) - but server purchasers >>>decided that something other than Wintel represented a better option for >>>servers. >>> >>>Then, something industry standard (and hence cheap) might emerge - which could >>>then be used in a home PC for people who want to play GM level chess (or have >>>high reolution virtual reality, or whatever). >>> >>>For many people, the best option for chess will be to rent time on a >>>supercomputer (via the internet), rather than buy their own supercomputer just >>>for the odd game - when a cheap computer meets all their other needs (calendar + >>>word processor in most cases!). >> >>Just started a job with Sun Micro systems or the new development team >>from intel? > >Not everybody does word processing. There are _plenty_ of horrendously >complex calculations being done every day. AutoCad. Simulations. Data >Mining. Etc. > > > > > >> >>>-g
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.