[Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Mark Hahn hahn at mcmaster.caFri Dec 5 05:44:43 PST 2008
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Next message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> (Well, duh). yeah - the point seems to be that we (still) need to scale memory along with core count. not just memory bandwidth but also concurrency (number of banks), though "ieee spectrum online for tech insiders" doesn't get into that kind of depth :( I still usually explain this as "traditional (ie Cray) supercomputing requires a balanced system." commodity processors are always less balanced than ideal, but to varying degrees. intel dual-socket quad-core was probably the worst for a long time, but things are looking up as intel joins AMD with memory connected to each socket. stacking memory on the processor is a red herring IMO, though they appear to assumed that the number of dram banks will scale linearly with cores. to me that sounds more like dram-based per-core cache.
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Next message: [Beowulf] Multicore Is Bad News For Supercomputers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
