Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014)
by pdpi on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @07:12AM
(#16428845)
You could buy a 64 processor machine in 1990, but it wouldn’t have been a 64 core machine in the sense we’re talking about — a single socket system. This isn’t some trivial distinction either, as the whole memory architecture is very different indeed for the two scenarios.
Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014)
by makomk on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @08:27AM
(#16429261)
Even in single-socket configurations, Threadripper and EPYC are still both NUMA architectures - the cores are split across two or four dies, each of which has its own memory controller and memory attached to it, with requests from a core to memory on another die going via an interconnect.
The people telling us we had to go change our code to use parallel processing fast predicted a significantly faster increase in amount-of-cores on commodity hardware. Instead, CPUs stopped getting faster and hardly gained more parallellism.