Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: rpw3@xxxxxxxx (Rob Warnock)
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:13:26 -0600
Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
+---------------
| Paul Wallich <p...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > The big question is whether inefficient use of cores is a bad thing.
|
| It's a bad thing because it's making poor use of expensive silicon.
+---------------
And even poorer use of all that extra leakage current
[excess heat, a.k.a. wasted electricity]. As the cores get
smaller & smaller, the idle power becomes a larger and larger
fraction of the full-out running power. So fewer cores used
more efficiently means more computations/kW-hr than many
cores used less efficiently, even if the computations/hr
happens to be the same.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@xxxxxxxx>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: John Thingstad
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- References:
- Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: George Neuner
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: John Thingstad
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Paul Wallich
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Tim Bradshaw
- Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Prev by Date: Re: Die, CL App Builder! Die!!!
- Next by Date: Re: Replacing Xaml with Lisp on Windows Vista
- Previous by thread: Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Next by thread: Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Index(es):