Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:33:19 06/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2002 at 10:39:40, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On June 19, 2002 at 02:51:30, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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.] >> >>In the words of Willy Wonka: >>"Strike that, reverse it." >> >>AMP is more flexible than a single CPU, but give me SMP over AMP any day. > >Well Dann, I will defer to your experience and judgement in this matter . . . >for now . . . but you may hear me say "I told you so!" sometime in the future. AMP has its place. It's a lot easier to coordinate 1000 CPU's that way. But for a given number of CPU's (say 64) SMP is clearly better.
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.