3 ms·
Out of curiosity, why aren't CPUs with asymmetrical core designs a thing? For example: a single, large primary core with a high clock speed supported by many lo
by rl3 10y ago
Out of curiosity, why aren't CPUs with asymmetrical core designs a thing? For example: a single, large primary core with a high clock speed supported by many lower-clocked smaller cores. Theoretically that would allow for the best of both worlds.
I imagine if such a design existed, it would disincentivize proper multi-core utilization in software to some degree. It would likely further complicate parallel programming as well.
At the same time, multi-core computing has been a thing for well over a decade now, and the reality is that a CPU's single-core performance still matters.
Are the efficiency advantages inherent in symmetrical core designs simply too great? Would asymmetrical designs not be suited for use with existing OS schedulers? Is operating a chip at multiple frequencies simultaneously somehow insane from a design perspective?
- xigency 10y agoYou can look up IBM's Cell design and try to gain some understanding from former PlayStation 3 game developers if you want to get a background on this. The major difference is that the PPE and SPE's have the same clock speed, but it is definitely a heterogenous architecture.
- ClassyJacket 10y agoThey do exist, but on ARM, not x86. Most high end phones on the market today have that.
- innocenat 10y agoWouldn't the SpeedStep or whatever it is called be that? They dynamically disable cores and boost clock speed.