3 ms·
You're missing the point. I think everyone knows what you're saying is true for a mobile phone or even a desktop PC. Where it's NOT true is on servers, where ta
by higherpurpose 12y ago
You're missing the point. I think everyone knows what you're saying is true for a mobile phone or even a desktop PC. Where it's NOT true is on servers, where tasks are "parallelized" since you have millions of concurrent users, so whether you have 1 million 8-core servers, or 125,000 64-core servers it doesn't matter much, because it's pretty much the same thing.
But from a whole datacenter perspective, I believe having servers with more cores is more efficient than having more servers with fewer cores, since data travels faster between more of the cores.
- jallmann 12y agoThis whole thread is talking past each other. Servers absolutely can have sequential dependencies, especially if there is a shared resource (eg, databases, IO, etc). If your application can make full use of all your cores without any inter-dependencies, great -- but that is not always the case.
- ethbro 12y ago"But from a whole datacenter perspective, I believe having servers with more cores is more efficient than having more servers with fewer cores, since data travels faster between more of the cores." How are you looking at this? From limited CompE background, my understanding was that moving data around core -> core burned a significant amount of power, even on the same die. (Using the comparison of one core vs two equally performing but separate cores)