4 ms·

Modern x64 is very difficult to beat and takes a lot more than just raw core count. The out of order execution, prefetching, multiple execution units, SIMD, ca

Modern x64 is very difficult to beat and takes a lot more than just raw core count. The out of order execution, prefetching, multiple execution units, SIMD, cache, cache synchronization etc. are all very strong. I think the space where more weak cores can be utilized but not GPUs is pretty slim. Intel themselves even had that briefly with their high core count out of order atom core chips that didn't take off (or weren't given a chance). I think software that can take advantage of more than a few cores without just using brute force fork-join parallelism in some of the heavy loops is rare. I don't think it has to be that way, but the problem comes down to software architecture which isn't going to be solved by leaving each application programmer to their own devices. It will take libraries that give them the means to do it without having to reason about low level synchronization.

marktangotango 7y ago
Modern x64 is very difficult to beat and takes a lot more than just raw core count. Are there any alternatives on the horizon?
- ryacko 7y ago
  It takes scale to reduce prices, low prices to create demand, demand to produce scale. Everything but the control unit of the CPU could be kept the same, but that is still a different wafer design.
- monocasa 7y ago
  AArch64, and RISC-V. POWER is a monoculture, and MIPS never really got out of it's gate count niche.
  - farisjarrah 7y ago
    MIPS may enjoy a resurgence, it will be open sourced soon I have read.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      It wasn't really open sourced. It's open in the sense that if you pay a bunch of money, and sign an NDA, you'll be given access to the source... which has always been the case. Some sales bro bought MIPS and slapped an "open" label on it. IMO, it's current steward has done more to kill it then ARM and RISC-V ever could.
- holy_city 7y ago
  Based on benchmarks (take them at face value) [1], Apple's A12/A12x processors are roughly 80% the performance of current-gen desktop CPUs (and on par with some mobile ones) in single threaded performance. I think a bit of that is power concerns, even with the 8 core chips. There have been rumors floating around that Apple will switch to their own ARM cores (based on the A12, probably) for a future generation of Mac computers. I think they'd have to meet or beat x86 for that to happen. Interestingly they're manufactured with TSMC's 7nm process, just like the new AMD chips. https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks
TallGuyShort 7y ago
>> the space where more weak cores can be utilized but not GPUs is pretty slim Yeah I think that's what it is. As you said that I realized that I do actually have a few customers that can benefit massively from many cores, but they're just using MANY, MANY cores and it's all CUDA. I don't see many people going for the compromised approach of say, Xeon Phi.

marktangotango 7y ago

Modern x64 is very difficult to beat and takes a lot more than just raw core count. Are there any alternatives on the horizon?

ryacko 7y ago
It takes scale to reduce prices, low prices to create demand, demand to produce scale. Everything but the control unit of the CPU could be kept the same, but that is still a different wafer design.
monocasa 7y ago
AArch64, and RISC-V. POWER is a monoculture, and MIPS never really got out of it's gate count niche.
- farisjarrah 7y ago
  MIPS may enjoy a resurgence, it will be open sourced soon I have read.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    It wasn't really open sourced. It's open in the sense that if you pay a bunch of money, and sign an NDA, you'll be given access to the source... which has always been the case. Some sales bro bought MIPS and slapped an "open" label on it. IMO, it's current steward has done more to kill it then ARM and RISC-V ever could.
holy_city 7y ago
Based on benchmarks (take them at face value) [1], Apple's A12/A12x processors are roughly 80% the performance of current-gen desktop CPUs (and on par with some mobile ones) in single threaded performance. I think a bit of that is power concerns, even with the 8 core chips. There have been rumors floating around that Apple will switch to their own ARM cores (based on the A12, probably) for a future generation of Mac computers. I think they'd have to meet or beat x86 for that to happen. Interestingly they're manufactured with TSMC's 7nm process, just like the new AMD chips. https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/ios-benchmarks

TallGuyShort 7y ago

>> the space where more weak cores can be utilized but not GPUs is pretty slim Yeah I think that's what it is. As you said that I realized that I do actually have a few customers that can benefit massively from many cores, but they're just using MANY, MANY cores and it's all CUDA. I don't see many people going for the compromised approach of say, Xeon Phi.