Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Latency versus Information Bandwidth: Questions

Author: Jeremiah Penery

Date: 22:14:18 12/04/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 04, 2002 at 23:23:32, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>>Current AthlonMP chipsets also have a seperate bus per CPU.  They use the same
>>EV6 bus as Alpha processors did (or still do?).  The memory modules shared,
>>whereas Hammer will have separate memory modules for each processor.
>
>
>The problem with that is it turns into a NUMA architecture which has its _own_
>set of problems.  One cpu connected to one memory module means that the other
>CPU can't get to it as efficiently...
>
>IE this doesn't offer one tiny bit of improvement over a SMP-type machine with
>shared memory...  Unless the algorithm is specifically designed to attempt to
>lccalize memory references and duplicate data that is needed by both threads
>often...
>
>This might be an improvement for running two programs at once.  For one
>program using two processors, NUMA offers additional challenges for the
>parallel programmer...

According to all documentation, which I have no reason to doubt, a non-local
memory access in a Hammer system is just as fast as a memory access in a
processor/chipset combination where the memory controller resides in the
northbridge (i.e. all other x86 configurations).  Local memory accesses are
quite a lot faster.  Therefore, the average case, even in 8-way machines that
take up to 3 hops for a memory access, is still below that of any x86 machine of
today.



This page took 0.01 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.