Intel's Ivy Bridge reviewed

Re:Intel's Ivy Bridge reviewed by freehunter on Monday April 23, 2012 @01:46PM (#3880020)

Throwing more cores at the problem isn't really terribly efficient, though. You don't see as much of a return as you might expect, especially when most things aren't properly multithreaded.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Ivy Bridge reviewed by rwmj on Monday April 23, 2012 @01:51PM (#3880043)

Oh sure, I understand it's not in Intel's interests at all. But it would sure make my builds faster if I could default to 'make -j16' (hyperthreads). I guess I'm not the target audience here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Ivy Bridge reviewed by bunderbunder on Monday April 23, 2012 @02:44PM (#3880300)

I suppose it depends on the toolchain, but in my experience build time is mostly dominated by disk I/O nowadays. Even with my code stored on an SSD.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Ivy Bridge reviewed by SamReidHughes on Tuesday April 24, 2012 @03:36AM (#3882897)

With C++ it is in my experience solidly CPU-bound, for example on 12 xeon cores, or 24 hyperthreading threads, and one 7200 RPM disk.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Ivy Bridge reviewed by freehunter on Tuesday April 24, 2012 @02:27PM (#3885564)

For any compiling work I need to do, I usually offload to my Linode install with 4 Xeons. Your mileage may vary, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]