AMD's 128-core Epycs could spell trouble for Ampere Computing

Re:AMD's 128-core Epycs could spell trouble for Ampere Compu... by RcouF1uZ4gsC on Saturday June 24, 2023 @09:47PM (#36464444)

It may also spell trouble for horizontal scaling. A 128 core computer with a few terabytes of RAM could handle loads that that would otherwise need dozens of computers. There are huge advantages in terms of ease of management and programming.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMD's 128-core Epycs could spell trouble for Ampere Compu... by geysersam on Sunday June 25, 2023 @12:05AM (#36465049)

Not sure about the "ease" of writing programs that scale efficiently to 128 cores.

If we're just running several processes there's not much difference from just running 8 computers each with 16 cores.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMD's 128-core Epycs could spell trouble for Ampere Compu... by eldenring on Sunday June 25, 2023 @12:36AM (#36465171)

This is absolutely not true, having shared memory or even just being able to communicate over local os pipes is massivley simpler than introducing a network.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMD's 128-core Epycs could spell trouble for Ampere Compu... by ilyt on Sunday June 25, 2023 @04:58AM (#36466212)

And orders of magnitude faster

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMD's 128-core Epycs could spell trouble for Ampere Compu... by ilyt on Sunday June 25, 2023 @04:58AM (#36466209)

Sure if you never programmed anything complex that needs actual communication and not just submitting job results at the end

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMD's 128-core Epycs could spell trouble for Ampere Compu... by imtringued on Sunday June 25, 2023 @05:32AM (#36466388)

8 servers use up one third of a rack.

You need interprocess communication that works across machines.

You need to orchestrate the deployment of software.

Communication within a machine is much faster.

[ Parent | on HN ]