A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

65nm news from Intel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261  
Old October 9th 04, 11:26 PM
Eugene Miya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
keith wrote:
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 09:24:06 -0700, Eugene Miya wrote:
Stefan Monnier wrote:
Your second CPU will be mostly idle, of course, but so is the first CPU
anyway ;-)

Yeah, but that's not bad.
2nd CPUs are cheap these days.


You may htinf the second is "cheap", but I don't. The second CPU and the
board that dgoes with it are certainly *not* "cheap".

The IBM TF-1 realy double the counted
CPUs for fault tolerance ad I/O.


Hmm, TF-1 was what, a decade ot two ago?


Yep, it shows how long it has been cheap.



Maybe.
Might be better to have better I/O processors.


Ah, back to the /360. ;-)


Yep.

Note that we do have GPUs and DMA masters. SMP doesn't solve all ills.


true.
--
  #262  
Old October 9th 04, 11:36 PM
Eugene Miya
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
keith wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:37:36 +0000, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
keith writes:
| On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 09:24:06 -0700, Eugene Miya wrote:
| Stefan Monnier wrote:
| Your second CPU will be mostly idle, of course, but so is the first CPU
| anyway ;-)
| Yeah, but that's not bad.
| 2nd CPUs are cheap these days.
|
| You may htinf the second is "cheap", but I don't. The second CPU and the
| board that dgoes with it are certainly *not* "cheap".
What board?


I will use the TF-1 as an example. CPUs weren't boards.
There were multiple CPUs on a chip, so most of the pattern was reusable.

The cost difference is far more marketing than production. Dual
CPU boards are sold as 'servers' and as 'performance workstations',
both at a premium. They could equally well be sold with the same
margin as the 'economy' boards.


The development costs (board/chipset/BIOS) have to be recaptured across
fewer units sold, so will cost more. Look at the prices of boards with
on-board SCSI, for another example. OTOH, it doesn't cost all *that* much
more to throw another core on a chip.


If you are seeking economies of scale in parallel computing, it doesn't
work well that way. The redundance works toward scale economies.
The problem is that the infrastructure does not last a long.

The desk top is not a likely near term place to find most
multiprocesssors as a final product. Dual processors are marginal for
most uses. In the numeric area, you want to see performance improvements
of factors of 8-16 if not more, not 2-4.

--
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell LuvrSmel Overclocking 1 January 10th 05 04:23 PM
Intel chipsets are the most stable? Grumble Homebuilt PC's 101 October 26th 04 02:53 AM
Real World Comparisons: AMD 3200 -vs- Intel 3.2. Your thoughts, experiences.... Ted Grevers General 33 February 6th 04 03:34 PM
Intel & 65nm Yousuf Khan General 0 November 25th 03 02:18 AM
Intel Updates Plans Again: Adds Pentium 4 EE at 3.40GHz and Pentium 4 at 3.40GHz lyon_wonder General 2 November 11th 03 12:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.