Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- From: "Del Cecchi" <delcecchiofthenorth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:06:25 -0600
"anonymous" <no@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.22.17.21.22.956764@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:31:59 +0100, Joachim Worringen wrote:
John Savard wrote:
This is informative. So the X-1 CPU is ahead of the SX-6 CPU. And I
do remember an article about the SX-6 chip which noted that it had no
cache, but instead a very high-speed path to external memory.
Vector architectures do not provide CPU-cache on purpose - the
coherence
protocol would kill the vector performance. Actually, you just don't
need the
type of cache that scalar CPUs rely on to get some performance.
However, the
SX-8 (the current NEC SX generation at 16Gflops) has a "bank-cache" to
reduce
the potential performance impact of bank conflicts (multiple CPUs
accessing the
same memory banks at the same time - vector machines have thousands of
memory
banks).
Which recent machines have thousands of banks? None of the ones
in the top 500 supercomputers list do, as far as I can tell!
--
Andronico
In some sense the many clustered machines have thousands of banks. They
just happen to be attached to thousands of processors, eg Blue Gene.
del
.
- References:
- I Should Surrender to Opteron
- From: John Savard
- Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- From: Thomas Womack
- Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- From: John Savard
- Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- From: Joachim Worringen
- Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- From: anonymous
- I Should Surrender to Opteron
- Prev by Date: Re: Vectored Interrupt Fetch
- Next by Date: Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- Previous by thread: Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- Next by thread: Re: I Should Surrender to Opteron
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|