> On 30 Jul 2008, at 16:35, Boian Mitov wrote: > > > The future is not likely to be in faster systems, but in more cores. > > This seems to be the consensus lately among the processor architects. > > It's the consensus between the marketing departments of various > processor manufacturers, because that's what they're delivering now > and in the short term future. As shown by Amdahl's law, just adding > more and more cores stops getting you significant performance gains > fairly soon (even if 95% of your code is perfectly parallelisable). > > See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
Well, try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafson's_Law for a comparison. And don't forget, despite the name, those are not laws, not even theories. See, Moore's Law turned out to be wrong after all. ;) Of course, you're right in the general case. Personally, I seriously doubt that we will see a desktop system with hundreds of processors in the next few years or so. Practical benchmarks these days have shown, that a Quad-Core gains almost nothing compared to a cheaper Dual-Core in most practical circumstances. Of course, that's what the processor architects are trying to change here. But considering the majority of desktop users, what would an e-mail program or word-processor gain from 64 cores? 99% of the time it's idling anyway... Vinzent. -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
