4 ms·
Arguably the first 1000-processor chip was the CM-1, made in the 1980's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecti
by rntz 10y ago
Arguably the first 1000-processor chip was the CM-1, made in the 1980's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine
They also bury the lede somewhat. Apparently the KiloCore is a 1.78 Terahertz chip:
> The energy-efficient “KiloCore” chip has a maximum computation rate of 1.78 trillion instructions per second
Edit: they later say it's 1.78 GHz. I guess "trillion" is just a mistake?
- deadgrey19 10y agoMaybe they mean "effective" speed. 1000x 1.78GHz = 1.78THz. Assuming a job is embarrassingly parallel it might be an ok metric. Realistically, probably not.
- mafuyu 10y agoInstructions Per Second is different from the clock speed. In this case, it looks like each core is ~1 Instruction Per Clock, so 1 * 1.78 GHz * 1000 cores. The trick is that getting 1.78 trillion IPS distributed over 1000 cores is very different from getting that over a few cores.
- CyberDildonics 10y ago... 1.78 GHz * 1000 processors ?
- simonster 10y agoAccording to the link, the CM-1 had 16 processors on a chip, but there were a lot of chips (up to 4096 to yield up to 65536 processors). Still, the programming paradigms that were used for the Connection Machine might be useful for the massively parallel chip described here.
- jacquesm 10y agoThat wasn't a chip.
- tlrobinson 10y agoSaying 1000 cores running at 1.78 GHz are a "1.78 THz chip" is a bit like saying 1000 cars driving at 65 mph are a "65,000 mph car"
- DigitalJack 10y agoIt is. But while it sounds absurd, there are cases where it makes sense. For loads that are parallelizable, both the 1.78 THz chip and 65KMPH car make sense for similes. I wouldn't say they are a 1.78THz chip or 65KMPH car, but like them.
- matt_d 10y agoIt's a modern version of the megahertz myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth#Modern_adaptations_of_the_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth#Modern_adaptati... I think this makes even less sense as we go to 1,000 processing elements -- even Amdahl's law is too optimistic for the workloads deployed in these scenarios (i.e., having an embarrassingly parallel computation workload doesn't help if we still need to access memory, including going through the shared interconnect(s) to do this, while also keeping cache coherence in mind--and most workloads have phases that have to be synchronized, assuming we eventually want to write the results of our computation somewhere): http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ddperf/archive/2009/04/29/parallel-scalability-isn-t-child-s-play-part-2-amdahl-s-law-vs-gunther-s-law.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ddperf/archive/2009/04/29/parallel-s...
- pg_is_a_butt 10y agogod, you are all idiots. only so much fits in a car. it isn't "like" a 65,000 mph car just like you aren't "like" not an idiot. (because you are an idiot) hertz and instructions are not the same thing. do you know what a data pipeline is, lady?