6 ms·
As per the piece, open 128 documents on a 128 core machine, and you'll see the difference.
by henrydark 5y ago
As per the piece, open 128 documents on a 128 core machine, and you'll see the difference.
- netr0ute 5y agoHow many people actually use a 128 core machine though? The absolute biggest AMD Threadripper you can get only has 64.
- tneumann 5y agoA dual socket EPYC costs about 15K. You can rent some online for 400$ a month. This gives you 128 cores for a relatively low price.
- henrydark 5y ago96 virtual cores is a popular choice on AWS, being cost effective in some industry scenarios. I'm certain the analysis of the piece applies
- mcguire 5y agoNo one needs more than 64 cores?
- nybble41 5y ago> The absolute biggest AMD Threadripper you can get only has 64. You can get a machine with dual 64-core AMD EPYC 7662 CPUs[0] for a total of 128 cores. It will cost you almost $20k, though—for the most basic configuration. [0] https://bizon-tech.com/bizon-x6000.html#959:8714;960:4858;961:4985;962:4879;963:4882;968:4911;973:4993;979:4995;1076:5882 https://bizon-tech.com/bizon-x6000.html#959:8714;960:4858;96...
- jrockway 5y agoThose Threadrippers have two vCPUs per core, so you can definitely have 128 things that appear to proceed in parallel.
- kllrnohj 5y agoThat seems like an awfully short sighted argument. Less than 20 years ago we were all using single-core CPUs. Now most of us have at least 6 cores if not more in a battery powered handheld device that we don't even expect to do much compute work on (aka, smartphones). And 8-16 cores w/ SMT are not an unusual consumer laptop/desktop configuration. The articles suggestion that it's only a matter of time for 128+ core CPUs to be common, at least in the server space, is probably the least contentious argument it makes?
- netr0ute 5y ago128 cores is only 2x 64 cores, and 64 cores is a whopping 4x what AMD's top dog desktop CPU offers, so if you have to go this far for exceptions to be slow, then maybe they don't matter for most users.
- kllrnohj 5y agoYour math is a bit off, confusing threads & cores. 128 threads is only 4x of what AMD's top desktop CPU offers, and is what current AMD server CPUs offer in a single socket system. And over the past 20 years consumer CPUs have 32x'd their thread count. A 4x increase over the next 10+ years really doesn't seem all that far-fetched. Also, the scaling problems show up far before 128 threads are used. The scaling issues start showing up at just 4-8 threads, depending on the error rate. Also also, C++ is used in a hell of a lot more places than just consumer desktops. So the current limitations of consumer desktops is fully irrelevant anyway.