Ben, On 12/11/08, Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: > > > There isn't much that an MIMD machine can do better than a similar-sized > > SIMD machine. > > Hey, that's just not true. > > There are loads of math theorems disproving this assertion...
Oops, I left out the presumed adjective "real-world". Of course there are countless diophantine equations and other math trivia that aren't vectorizable. However, anything resembling a brain in that the process can be done by billions of slow components must by its very nature vectorizable. Hence, in the domain of our discussions, I think my statement still holds >> > >> OO and generic design patterns do buy you *something* ... > > > > > > OO is often impossible to vectorize. > > The point is that we've used OO design to wrap up all > processor-intensive code inside specific objects, which could then be > rewritten to be vector-processing friendly... As long as the OO is at a high enough level so as not to gobble up a bunch of time in the SISD control processor, then no problem. > There is an 80-core chip due out any time now. Intel has had BIG problems > > finding anything to run on them, so I suspect that they would be more > than > > glad to give you a few if you promise to do something with them. > > Indeed, AGI and physics simulation may be two of the app areas that have > the easiest times making use of these 80-core chips... I don't think Intel is even looking at these. They are targeting embedded applications. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
