5 ms·

Just a nitpicking, but calling an Altra system "the fastest ARM desktop" is misleading. The CPU does have a huge flops number, but nothing "desktop" can saturat

by esjeon 3y ago

Just a nitpicking, but calling an Altra system "the fastest ARM desktop" is misleading. The CPU does have a huge flops number, but nothing "desktop" can saturate that many cores, especially when the system comes with a GPU. Altra is design for cloud workloads, and might be useful for some specialized tasks, but high core count (>8) has little-to-no impact in the "desktop" context. Single-core performance is more important because it can improve response time without performing peculiar synchronization dances.

hurril 3y ago
This is not right. This is a desktop and I use it to write programs which implies invoking a compiler. Having a snappy UI is important but short compile times can be importanter(!) once a baseline latency has been achieved.
hulitu 3y ago
> Single-core performance is more important because Because there are a lot of svchost.exe instances fighting for this core. /s
rewmie 3y ago
> The CPU does have a huge flops number, but nothing "desktop" can saturate that many cores, especially when the system comes with a GPU. I've seen this blend of argument being made towards multicore CPUs when AMD and Intel started selling them. Critics started claiming these new chips were being designed like Gilette razors, and there was no way desktop applications, not even AAA games, could ever saturate so many cores. It took Supreme Commander to be released to get these critics to finally shut up. The moral of the story is that today's software was designed targeting yesterday's hardware. Nevertheless, even today you'd be hard-pressed to find a single application that doesn't run multiple threads, and on top of that you'd be hard-pressed to find a single desktop user that only runs a single application when working on a computer. Even smartphones today are packing CPUs with 8 cores. And finally, HN being a tech-related forum, most of the people here work on software. Your typical run-of-the-mill build process is embarrassingly parallel. This means that all it takes to saturate that many cores is for anyone to hit "build". And I won't even go into ML.
- esjeon 3y ago
  Yeah, I agree overall, but my complaint was that the author was covering literally "desktop" usages. > The moral of the story is that today's software was designed targeting yesterday's hardware. The problem with CPUs w/ high core counts is that GPU can be more efficient in most cases. The tasks that specifically need CPU are likely complex and dynamic - in terms of codeflow and dataflow - so that they can't benefit from SIMD/SPMD. I don't think "desktop" need any such complexities, especially when the actual complexity of desktop software hardly increased for decades except web browsers.

by esjeon 3y ago

hurril 3y ago

This is not right. This is a desktop and I use it to write programs which implies invoking a compiler. Having a snappy UI is important but short compile times can be importanter(!) once a baseline latency has been achieved.

hulitu 3y ago

> Single-core performance is more important because Because there are a lot of svchost.exe instances fighting for this core. /s

rewmie 3y ago

> The CPU does have a huge flops number, but nothing "desktop" can saturate that many cores, especially when the system comes with a GPU. I've seen this blend of argument being made towards multicore CPUs when AMD and Intel started selling them. Critics started claiming these new chips were being designed like Gilette razors, and there was no way desktop applications, not even AAA games, could ever saturate so many cores. It took Supreme Commander to be released to get these critics to finally shut up. The moral of the story is that today's software was designed targeting yesterday's hardware. Nevertheless, even today you'd be hard-pressed to find a single application that doesn't run multiple threads, and on top of that you'd be hard-pressed to find a single desktop user that only runs a single application when working on a computer. Even smartphones today are packing CPUs with 8 cores. And finally, HN being a tech-related forum, most of the people here work on software. Your typical run-of-the-mill build process is embarrassingly parallel. This means that all it takes to saturate that many cores is for anyone to hit "build". And I won't even go into ML.

esjeon 3y ago
Yeah, I agree overall, but my complaint was that the author was covering literally "desktop" usages. > The moral of the story is that today's software was designed targeting yesterday's hardware. The problem with CPUs w/ high core counts is that GPU can be more efficient in most cases. The tasks that specifically need CPU are likely complex and dynamic - in terms of codeflow and dataflow - so that they can't benefit from SIMD/SPMD. I don't think "desktop" need any such complexities, especially when the actual complexity of desktop software hardly increased for decades except web browsers.