4 ms·
I'm under the impression that the reason Intel isn't producing 256-core CPUs has less to do with the technical problems involved than with the fact that, outsid
by rubinelli 14y ago
I'm under the impression that the reason Intel isn't producing 256-core CPUs has less to do with the technical problems involved than with the fact that, outside CPU-heavy mathematical computing, nobody needs them. The few embarrassingly parallel tasks we have are most of the time well served by GPUs, or distributed in a cluster of cheap servers to increase I/O.
- moe 14y agoor distributed in a cluster of cheap servers to increase I/O If a smaller cluster of 256-core servers had better bang/buck than a bigger cluster of 16-core servers then that would still be a win for many applications (not everything CPU bound is also I/O bound, e.g. web application servers written in hilariously inefficient languages, virtualization).
- belorn 14y agoLooking at current web-services, or private gaming, more CPU is indeed needed. Take a game like guild wars 2 and their pvp where in a screen's line of sight, you have somewhere of 300 players all using some form of animated actions with projectiles and particles and other fluff. CPU is indeed in need there, through the bottle neck could well be their utilization of the cpu cores. Games are always pushing for more, and cpu usages has not exactly slowed down. On the web-services side, if you don't go cloudy with clouds, you still want to have a large cpu resource for scaling.