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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |