Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 04:41:16 06/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2002 at 21:38:49, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On June 18, 2002 at 21:08:00, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On June 18, 2002 at 20:35:00, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >> >>>Well, if people only resort to AMP when they absolutely have no choice, then >>>they are unlikely to discover any of AMPs merits. It is only when they are >>>willing to explore the unknown that they will see what is possible. >> >>The thing is, SMP is kind of a superset of AMP. You can do message passing on an >>SMP computer if you want, but it's kind of a waste. (Extra work involved.) > >The big question in my mind is "Yes, but what ELSE can you do with AMP?" In a >single processor, the interaction between parallel paths is fixed. The >programmer can do little or nothing about it. But with separate processors, the >programmer has more options, or more flexibility. [Or, at least, that's my >perception of the situation.] I think this is wrong. You can always simulate AMP with SMP without big performance hit; the other way around is almost impossible. -Andrew-
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.