nr9
About
- Username
- nr9
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 182
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown You don't know as much as you think you do. And as long as you continue to believe you know as much as you think you do, you never will. you should talk in the mirror
-
Quote: Originally posted by Programmer Heh. Well there are many people, some of whom have a whole lot more money to spend than you do, who seem pretty confident that not only can IBM compete but that they are a good bet going forward. then l…
-
Quote: Originally posted by Powerdoc Apple will not be able to compete for hardware technology, specialization is much more efficient to some degree, this is true for price/performance apple sells its computers because of a superior ope…
-
IBM will not be able to compete. for fab technlogy, specialization is much more efficient.
-
Quote: Originally posted by THT It's a difficult question to answer because we have no data to base a rate of PPC improvements on. Overall, it really just depends on IBM being able to jump to 90 nm, 65 nm and then 45/50 nm every 18 to 24 mont…
-
it is heartbreaking to see such a relevant topic decay into an argument on cache coherency.
-
Quote: Originally posted by Stoo Not true: not all applications are inherently (sensibly) parallelisable. most applications that require computing power will be to some degree parallelisable. you would have to rethink your whole programmin…
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown No, not currently. But give STI a few years and lets see. Those are some smart folk with deep pockets, if anyone can come up with a next generation architecture they can. Of course, they're just loo…
-
The L2 and L3 cache are coherent among pairs of processor, and yes, the main memory is shared. directory sharing is perfectly feasible for small # of proc. i do not believe sharing memory will be feasible on a large scale however ie thousands …
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown Ok, you've basically ignored my arguments or ignored their context and I've really no interest in correcting your assumptions beyond addressing this bit: Of course there are PPC clusters out th…
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown Despite Nr9's insistance that Cell == clustering, keep in mind that future iterations of this technology will likely embody technologies that address this issue and may well change how we look at th…
-
Quote: Originally posted by rickag Bear in mind I have no technical knowledge. Just reading this thread, it would seem to me that using 4 - 440 cores, then developing all the associated communication, cache and L2/L3 memory to provide any real…
-
Quote: Originally posted by TJM I was thinking along those exact same lines. I get the feeling that (if he's not completely pulling our legs) Nr9 does have access to some insiders, but it's not his own field and so is getting some details mixed …
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown Really? You don't think they might have a proprietary messaging protocol? Or proprietary interchip busses? Or custom cores? And you can prove this how? You've repeatedly insisted that the STI …
-
Cell is basically cluster technology there is nothing new, except very high bandwidth, very low power core, lots of cores. this is what is new. 4 core laptop using cellular computing.
-
they are running special MPI integrate in OS. It can distribute all thread. WWDC will tell developer to write their app in MPI. cell is basically just a clustering solution anyways. my sources did not mention Power Tune and there is no i…
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown Hmmm. Convenient that you were able to get a hold of your sources to address the question of how applications are prioritized. Well. Now that we have that straightened out... OK, then. If I un…
-
I never doubted 90nm G5. what i doubt is that 90nm G5 will be suitable for laptop purposes
-
this afternoon I talked with some of my sources. There is an important thing they mentioned to me. The overall design is the same, it has 2 processors per chip with 2 chips for 4 processor 440 design. however, it also has one additional integer onl…
-
Quote: Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown Well he said two MCMs with two 440s each. Which is nonsensical at the outset, since an MCM describes the Power4 and Power5 packaging and IBM does not use the terminology elsewhere, to my knowledge. …