5 ms·
Which is great if you have a traditional server application servicing a lot of independent requests, or giant linear equations that can be solved in parallel.
by StillBored 4y ago
Which is great if you have a traditional server application servicing a lot of independent requests, or giant linear equations that can be solved in parallel.
OTOH, the graph has an amadal's law section, which for many tasks is pretty out of steam (aka desktop web browsing/javascript JIT/etc).
I'm not going to be so stupid as to say 8 cores should be enough for anyone (while attached to a machine with 128) but you have to wonder if the stable diffusion style apps running on your desktop are going to be mainstream, or isolated to the few who choose to _need_ them as a hobby or a smaller part of the public that uses them for commercial success. AKA, I can utilize just about every core i'm given with parallel compiles, or rendering a 4K video, but I'm pretty sure i'm the only one in my immediate family that needs that. My wife in the past might have done some simulation work, but these days the heaviest thing she runs on her PC is office products.
This really gets back at the Arm big.little thing, where you really want 99% of your application usage to run on the big cores. The little cores only exist for background/latency insensitive tasks, and the odd case where the problem actually can utilize a large number of parallel cores and needs to maximize efficiency in the power envelope to maximize computation. AKA throw a lot of lower power transistors at the people rendering video/etc, and leave them powered off most of the time.
AKA, put another way, the common use case is a few big powerful cores for normal use, playing games, whatever with one or two high efficiency processors for everything else and a pile of dark silicon for the rare application that actually can utilize dozens of cores because its trivial to parallelize and doesn't work better being offloaded to a GPU. I suspect long term intel was probably right with larrabee, they were just a decade or two early.
So, economically I don't see people buying machines with a couple hundred cores that sit dark most of the time. Which will drive the price up even more, and make them less popular.
- eru 4y ago> I'm not going to be so stupid as to say 8 cores should be enough for anyone (while attached to a machine with 128) but you have to wonder if the stable diffusion style apps running on your desktop are going to be mainstream, or isolated to the few who choose to _need_ them as a hobby or a smaller part of the public that uses them for commercial success. AKA, I can utilize just about every core i'm given with parallel compiles, or rendering a 4K video, but I'm pretty sure i'm the only one in my immediate family that needs that. My wife in the past might have done some simulation work, but these days the heaviest thing she runs on her PC is office products. See GAN Theft Auto at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udPY5rQVoW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udPY5rQVoW0 Someone trained a neural network to convert controller input into video output that simulates the game Grand Theft Auto. If technology keeps improving, I expect many future games will be such 'dreams' of neural networks. You are right that running Word or Excel won't really benefit from more cores.