4 ms·

As I type this, I'm waiting for a process that could have a parallelism of about 9,000 threads but it's running on a mere 12-core machine (compiling a large C++

by jepler 10y ago

As I type this, I'm waiting for a process that could have a parallelism of about 9,000 threads but it's running on a mere 12-core machine (compiling a large C++ project). Bring on the "20 or 100 CPUs" for my next computer please. Though, as mentioned elsewhere, this is also likely to hit memory bandwidth limits for affordable systems, not to mention total memory usage limits given that more than a few of those 9,000 compiles peak at >1GB RSS.

oneshot908 10y ago
As a longtime GPU programmer, agreed 100%! There's still room for more parallel-friendly algorithms and higher memory bandwidth before the party is truly over IMO. But... One has to embrace parallel languages instead of single-threaded scripting languages or the music is going to stop playing RSN, no?