or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by chadbag

I never claimed you can spread a thread across cores.  You are misunderstanding.  But they don't need a faster thread to show me my email.  Especially when they are getting the same CPU cycles because they are not time slicing it with a billion other threads. And the Samsung thing:  They don't run all 8 CPUs at once.  Whether they can can run 2+2 or 4+0 or 0+4 only or whatever is not important.  They don't run all 8 at once.  It is really a quad core phone that can...
I am not missing anything.   The average mail, messaging, web client, etc. would work well on these "slower cores."   They are fast enough to run mail, web browsing, text edit, and all the other mundane stuff that these single cores make up. The very fact that there are single threaded tasks makes the lot of smaller cores more ideal as each core can run a more limited set of single threaded cores, but also be available for the massively parallel tasks that come down the...
 32 or 64 smaller cores may be the same as say 8 of your high powered cores in terms of CPU cycles.   We'll see, but I foresee that a lot of small cores may be a way in the future to achieving better results than trying to high power your cores and just have a few.  Context switching wastes your cache, time, etc in general terms.  With lots of smaller cores your CPU scheduler needs to be more efficient and can be less efficient at the same time.  It needs to keep the cores...
Having a single Atom would suck.  Having 12 or 18 of them -- maybe not.
The industry has not had multitudes of cheap, low energy usage, relatively high power cores to play with before. And they have when you look at servers.   For many of the same reasons, except now, the costs are low enough, potentially, to be tried on the desktop. No one is "throwing cores" at the problem.  They are reimagining the use of cores to solve the problem.
 You missed my point.  I know that most normal day to day apps don't break down into nice neat pieces that you can spread amongst cores.  But when you have lots of cores, you can do other things like put each app on its own core.  The app only runs on the one core but it is not sharing that core with any (or many) other apps.  And the underlying OS can be made to utilize lots of cores, and high end apps will be made to utilize the cores.  So speaking about 32 or 64 cores...
For the sense of what we are talking about the difference between strict virtualization and "virtualization" in general (which you labeled emulation, which is still a form of virtualization) is pedantic.   The fact is that todays processors or arrays of processors are vastly more powerful than the old PPC chips with which we emulated windows.   No one is talking about emulating windows on an existing AnX chip.   An array of such chips, however, is a different beast.
 A 32 or 64 core ARM would work very well in a desktop.   Power hungry apps are already parallelized, but even ones that aren't can run on their own core so you don't have to share your CPU with other apps, or with as many other apps.   On my desktop I have 12 apps currently marked as "running".  If they were each in their own core, plus the OS processes used a few cores, then your average desktop app itself would not have to be optimized for many cores in order to get a...
Just for the record I carry my iPhones 'naked' and have since the 5 came out. And I have no luxury handbag. Just my pants pocket (granted Vertx pants and their awesome experience online pocket)
 I am not sure why it couldn't.  PPC Macs ran virtualized Windows.   You probably wouldn't be playing games but you could virtualize the CPU and have 9 or so cores running it for decent performance I would guess.
New Posts  All Forums: