3 ms·

As one of the authors of the original paper the data is based on I have fond memories as a graduate student of standardizing the performance data to SpecInt whi

As one of the authors of the original paper the data is based on I have fond memories as a graduate student of standardizing the performance data to SpecInt which did not exist till the 2000s. So for the older processors that were no longer available I looked hard for processors that had both SpecInt and older benchmarks like Dhrystone and MIPS per seconds to normalize them to SpecInt performance. The same data was used by other students of my advisor to create the Cpu database which has some more data like cache sizes and FO4. http://cpudb.stanford.edu/ http://cpudb.stanford.edu/

igravious 8y ago
Excellent work! From the latest data (https://www.karlrupp.net/2018/02/42-years-of-microprocessor-trend-data/ https://www.karlrupp.net/2018/02/42-years-of-microprocessor-...) you can definitely see that single-threaded performance is still increasing but not at the exponential clip it was. The inflection point for that is around the mid-2000s. It is hard to eyeball because the chart is logarithmic but the rate of increase looks to be sub-exponential for the past decade or so. MHz and Watts have clearly levelled off. Number of logical cores looks to be on an exponential path so clearly we need to be tracking multi-threaded performance gains. Unlike your work this only needs to be backdated to the mid-2000s – multi-core ramps up when single-threaded starts ramping down – so it should be far easier. Pretty much all applications take advantage of multi-threading now, be it multi-processing or multi-threading. Erlang is the only language I know of that has the multi-threaded paradigm baked into its core. Ruby has had Fibers since 2.2 so they are very much a tacked on idea. Perhaps what we need is to retrofit them to C, come up with an abstract machine model and language primitives that fits our multi-core world. We could call it C[].
- rijoja 8y ago
  What are youre thoughts on golang from my shallow investigations they seem to have a fairly good model readily available built into the language

igravious 8y ago

Excellent work! From the latest data (https://www.karlrupp.net/2018/02/42-years-of-microprocessor-trend-data/ https://www.karlrupp.net/2018/02/42-years-of-microprocessor-...) you can definitely see that single-threaded performance is still increasing but not at the exponential clip it was. The inflection point for that is around the mid-2000s. It is hard to eyeball because the chart is logarithmic but the rate of increase looks to be sub-exponential for the past decade or so. MHz and Watts have clearly levelled off. Number of logical cores looks to be on an exponential path so clearly we need to be tracking multi-threaded performance gains. Unlike your work this only needs to be backdated to the mid-2000s – multi-core ramps up when single-threaded starts ramping down – so it should be far easier. Pretty much all applications take advantage of multi-threading now, be it multi-processing or multi-threading. Erlang is the only language I know of that has the multi-threaded paradigm baked into its core. Ruby has had Fibers since 2.2 so they are very much a tacked on idea. Perhaps what we need is to retrofit them to C, come up with an abstract machine model and language primitives that fits our multi-core world. We could call it C[].

rijoja 8y ago
What are youre thoughts on golang from my shallow investigations they seem to have a fairly good model readily available built into the language