3 ms·
It 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 f
by DigitalJack 10y ago
It 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?