Comments on: The difference between multi-core and multi-processing http://blogs.rapidmind.com/2008/04/17/the-difference-between-multi-core-and-multi-processing/ The vision of parallel programming for multi-core architectures. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:05:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Stefanus Du Toit http://blogs.rapidmind.com/2008/04/17/the-difference-between-multi-core-and-multi-processing/#comment-82 Stefanus Du Toit Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:02:49 +0000 http://blog.rapidmind.com/?p=16#comment-82 Anonymous: Absolutely - I didn't mean to imply anything at all about heterogeneous vs homogeneous architectures in my posting (apart from pointing out that the "S" in "SMP" implies homogeneous processors at some level). Heterogeneous processor designs are an interesting alternative to homogeneous designs, and we're likely to see more of them in the future. Exactly what kind of processor architecture will "win out" in the next decade isn't clear yet. All of my points apply to heterogeneous computing, maybe even moreso. Software must adapt to multi-core to keep scaling in performance. If heterogeneous cores become commonplace, software will have to adopt to these as well. Our platform already targets heterogeneous designs such as the Cell Broadband Engine and combinations of CPUs and GPUs today, and our aim is to make it possible to write code that scales well "no matter what crazy hardware you throw at it" :) - multi-core, many-core, homogeneous, heterogeneous, you name it. Anonymous: Absolutely - I didn’t mean to imply anything at all about heterogeneous vs homogeneous architectures in my posting (apart from pointing out that the “S” in “SMP” implies homogeneous processors at some level). Heterogeneous processor designs are an interesting alternative to homogeneous designs, and we’re likely to see more of them in the future. Exactly what kind of processor architecture will “win out” in the next decade isn’t clear yet.

All of my points apply to heterogeneous computing, maybe even moreso. Software must adapt to multi-core to keep scaling in performance. If heterogeneous cores become commonplace, software will have to adopt to these as well. Our platform already targets heterogeneous designs such as the Cell Broadband Engine and combinations of CPUs and GPUs today, and our aim is to make it possible to write code that scales well “no matter what crazy hardware you throw at it” :) - multi-core, many-core, homogeneous, heterogeneous, you name it.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blogs.rapidmind.com/2008/04/17/the-difference-between-multi-core-and-multi-processing/#comment-79 Anonymous Fri, 30 May 2008 15:57:39 +0000 http://blog.rapidmind.com/?p=16#comment-79 I agree with you on the basic idea of your post: today's performance gains only through multi-core computing. However, the idea of having 100-1000 identical cores in the future seems to be highly improbable. Let's analyse it: In the year X set in future, let there be a processor with 1000 identical cores. Now let's replace e.g. 10 of these cores with specialized cores. Why? Because let us suppose that it gives certain applications (call them 'A') used in the year X a big speed boost. Other applications now have to run at most at 99% of their original speed [= (1000-10)/1000]. Who cares that those other applications run at 99% speed when applications 'A' run let's say 5% faster? Nobody. Therefore, homogeneous multi-core systems are in fact a transitory stage in the evolution of computing, the final stage being processors and systems with the right mixture of *computing blocks*. Complexity will win. I agree with you on the basic idea of your post: today’s performance gains only through multi-core computing. However, the idea of having 100-1000 identical cores in the future seems to be highly improbable. Let’s analyse it: In the year X set in future, let there be a processor with 1000 identical cores. Now let’s replace e.g. 10 of these cores with specialized cores. Why? Because let us suppose that it gives certain applications (call them ‘A’) used in the year X a big speed boost. Other applications now have to run at most at 99% of their original speed [= (1000-10)/1000]. Who cares that those other applications run at 99% speed when applications ‘A’ run let’s say 5% faster? Nobody. Therefore, homogeneous multi-core systems are in fact a transitory stage in the evolution of computing, the final stage being processors and systems with the right mixture of *computing blocks*. Complexity will win.

]]>