On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 10:19 -0300, Mark Boon wrote: > > On 10-aug-08, at 17:24, Don Dailey wrote: > > > Of course there is also the possibility of some exciting new > > hardware > > > > breakthrough around the corner that doesn't just extend Moore's law, > > but > > > > blows it out of the water. > > > > Of course there's that possibility. But I'm actually wondering if we > wouldn't rather be seeing the opposite. Moore's law seems to have > stalled for a few years, only to gain traction again with multiple > core designs. But unlike previous advances in computing power, > multiple processing is not as easily available to all software alike.
Yes, moores law isn't a smooth curve but a jagged one. Processors are still continuing to get faster, but at a slower rate. > > People are already asking me (and themselves) what I need an 8-core > computer for. Unless we also see some good progress in software > development, 99% of people will have no use for a 1,000 CPU computer, > either privately or professionally. Game developers already struggle > to use the Playstation's cell architecture to its full potential. If > that remains the case then the type of super-computers that MoGo ran > on will stay in the domain of extreme scientific research isolated to > very special purposes for a long time. Of course you and I can never get enough. Give me 1 million processors and I would put them to work. How about testing? I could rate a variety of programs ACCURATELY in seconds with a million processors! I think software will catch up. This is all new and we are not at a point where very many people have 2 cores although it's now entry level. So in a year or two most people will have at least 2 cores. I think 4+ cores has to become really common before the pressure to build software to utilize it gains a lot of traction. There is also the issue that some algorithms are so serial in nature that they cannot benefit. So in a way it's bad news that Moores law has shifted to more processors. But in many cases the algorithms will have to change. There is already a very slow and very gradual shift to languages that can take advantage of parallel processing. A lot of people are now thinking about this so it will happen. But first the hardware has to be there and the pressure to do it will be overwhelming soon. - Don > > > So while I think it's definitely possible that massively parallel > computing can still progress at a fast pace, the fact that it will > become dependent on similar progress in the software field makes it a > quite a bit less likely to happen at the same speed as in the previous > decades, IMO. Because in the end it's the needs of the masses that > drives the real progress of computing speed. > > > This is all in the realm of speculation of course, and I'd just as > happily be proven wrong on this. > > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
