29 Jun
2018
29 Jun
'18
5:51 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 04:32:59PM +0100, tfb(a)tfeb.org wrote:
On 28 Jun 2018, at 18:09, Larry McVoy
<lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
Not "intentionally" as "let me slow this down" but as in
"it's faster
and cheaper to make a slower cpu so I'll just give you more of them".
The market has shown, repeatedly, that more slow cpus are not as fun
as less faster cpus.
It's not a hard concept and I struggle to understand why it's a point
to discuss.
I'm not sure how people keep missing the original point. Which was:
the market won't choose a bunch of wimpy cpus when it can get faster
ones. It wasn't about the physics (which I'm not arguing with), it
was about a choice between lots of wimpy cpus and a smaller number of
fast cpus. The market wants the latter, as Ted said, Sun bet heavily
on the former and is no more.
[I said I wouldn't reply more: I'm weak.]
I think we have been talking at cross-purposes, which is probably
my fault. I think you've been using 'wimpy' to mean 'intentionally
slower than they could be' while I have been using it to mean 'of very
tiny computational power compared to the power of the whole system'.
Your usage is probably more correct in terms of the way the term has
been used historically. But I think my usage tells you something important:
that the performance
of individual cores will, inevitably, become increasingly tiny compared
to the performance of the system they are in ....
Yeah, so what? That wasn't the point being discussed though you and Perry
keep pushing it.