2 ms·
Yep, I see it as latency vs throughput optimisation, particularly wrt memory subsystem. What I was pointing out is, x86 is not well suited to GPU execution; Int
by pixelpoet 3y ago
Yep, I see it as latency vs throughput optimisation, particularly wrt memory subsystem. What I was pointing out is, x86 is not well suited to GPU execution; Intel tried that with Larrabee. Moreover, in the latest generation Nvidia chips you have 72-96mb L2 cache and 2.5ghz+ clock speed, so it's remarkably capable per-thread.
At some point, and I think 256 cores might be the ballpark, you're committing to using so many threads that you're probably mostly interested in high throughput. (I'm writing commercial path tracers so my bias is obvious!)
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agoone thing with high that cpus is you can use them to claw back against OS latency. you can do things like pin 128 cores for your application, 64 for your networking, 32 for disk IO and 32 general purpose, and keep the OS from scheduling other programs on the critical cores for running your program.