11 ms·
"you're getting beaten over the head by chip designers telling you that your future cpu is going to consist of a (possibly large) array of processing cores with
by axod 18y ago
"you're getting beaten over the head by chip designers telling you that your future cpu is going to consist of a (possibly large) array of processing cores with a high-capacity bus connecting them."
Sorry, but I don't buy that. We're also moving to a thin client world where we don't actually need that much power on our thin clients.
Of course the chip makers are saying that - they want to sell more chips. They have to come up with some other number they can increase.
- crabapple 18y agoSorry, but I don't buy that then you clearly aren't buying new high-end servers for data crunching either, because these are already multicore
- swombat 18y agoAs surprising as that may sound, 99% of developers out there are not buying new high-end servers for data crunching, no.
- crabapple 18y agowhat is in the cpus of those machines will be in the cpus of all machines. jesus, how much more legit can you get than intel telling you this is coming?
- 13ren 18y agoItanium
- d0mine 18y agoIntel may try to sell many-core but who wants to buy it?
- axod 18y agoUm... you consider a chip maker, telling you that you need to buy new chips "legit"?
- orib 18y agoNo, but I consider a chip maker telling me what kind of chips they're going to be making legit. Especially when all the other chip makers are saying the same thing (All the other chip makers: AMD, Freescale, Intel, Sun, Marvell, and others)
- blackguardx 18y agoCan you envision a world where your "thin client" is powered by 25 cores clocked at a low speed like 100 MHz? Why not? Do you really think performance doesn't need to be increased from the current status quo? The number of cores will only go up from here.
- axod 18y agoNo I can't. That would be simply ridiculous. The thirst for power is not infinite. At some point, most people will have enough power to do everything they need (Unless they're using say windows, which will always require 10 times more computing power than the previous version).
- blackguardx 18y agoAnd 640 kilobytes of RAM should be enough for anybody. There will always be an increase in power demand. To think otherwise is short-sighted. If you could keep what we have now or have a sentient computer sitting on your desk, which would you choose?
- axod 18y agoPersonally? I'd keep what I have. There is nothing better or more rewarding than squeezing more performance out of fixed limited hardware. Where is the fun if you can just buy twice as many servers? The day hardware is free, is a very very sad day for programmers. Of course there will be massive demands in the world of servers, research, gaming etc, but that's not everything.
- randallsquared 18y ago"The day hardware is free, is a very very sad day for programmers." It may be a sad day for those of you who program primarily for the challenge, but for those of us who want to get stuff done, it'll be a joyous day. :)
- orib 18y ago"Sorry, but I don't buy that. We're also moving to a thin client world where we don't actually need that much power on our thin clients." Yeah, we've heard it before, several times, from the moment that networking was invented and onwards. Why will the push for this stick _this_ time around?