3 ms·
That 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 i
by kllrnohj 5y ago
That 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.