Slashdot Mirror
Four Core Processor to Bring Tera Ops
panhandler writes "As reported at CNet and the Austin American Statesman, researchers at UT are working with IBM on a new CPU architecture called TRIPS (Tera-op Reliable Intelligently adaptive Processing System). According to IBM, 'at the heart of the TRIPS architecture is a new concept called 'block-oriented execution"' which will result in a processor capable of executing more than 1 trillion operations per second."
at Unreal Tournament ? Why, some have cool jobs.
this way you, yankees, can count every dollar of your actual external debt in a little more than a second !
Smile, don't click...
Great... Just what we need, processors that can perform an instruction, then wait 40000 cycles for the next instruction to be read from memory. I wish we could see some memory improvements to go along with these.
Seriously, though, this will help break all the clustering records, provided we can come up with faster interconnects by then.
--That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
Will still take five minutes to boot into a login prompt. Some things never change.
A somewhat more informative link for more info. Would it really kill submitters to put a link to the actual project in their submission...
Nae bother
EPIC is clearly dead in the water. Intel didn't learn from the 432.
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
Here
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
"This is yet another breach of our IP! Our fine researcher came up with this technology over 10 years ago, we have just ket it hidden for all this time. Unfortunately we wrote the patent-applications with invisible ninja-ink and they are being kept in a vault in our Fortress of Doom (tm), so we can't show them to anyone.
We expect IBM to pay us 5 billion dollars plus 4 x $699 for each CPU sold"
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Does anyone remember the Pentium Pro? It was an extremely expensive processor. This was because of its strange system of connecting the CPU core with a massive amount of cache ram; production yields were very low, so fabrication costs were very high.
Imagine how high the failure rate would be with fabricating a CPU with four cores... I don't see how it would be practical unless it was with an extremely-high yield design such as the StrongARM.
The four cores add up to only 32 billion operations right now according to the CNet article. They project that they won't reach 1 trillion until 2010.
Hmmm... Pie...
But this reminds me of a growing trend, and that is that as soon as large infrastructures are finally completed (be it the transition to OS X or 802.11b) the technology becomes obsolete. However, the entire infrastructure must be replaced. I don't care how many gazillion flops this or any other processor can pull. They need to easily scale so that the entire infrastructure does not need replacing.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
If each chip is basically four processors each of which can execute 16 operations simultaneously, it will be difficult for compilers to find 64 independent instructions to execute each cycle.
I guess one possibilty could be to execute instructions from four different processes simultaneously, thus reducing the probability that the instuctions will interfere.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
If anyone in any way shape or form mentions the word beowulf, expect a swift kick in the nuts by your's truly.
That is all
Hacker Media
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Wasn't the PS3 "Cell" chip made by IBM and Sony supposed to deliver 1 teraflop too?
....that I've had Doug Burger and Steve Keckler as professors here at UT, and not only do they know their stuff, but they're great professors as well, and they really seem to intimately care about the technology. They have a great sense of humor too (such as Dr. Burger complaining that he doesn't even have root access to his own machines :-P)
Well, I don;t need postfix, Apache, Zope, MySQL, PostgreSQL and many other services at the moment of login. So, Win2k designers has recognized the it and optimized the boot sequence being oriented for a desktop user. In Linux we still keep a server-oriented mentality, that's why XDM/GDM/KDM/EDM is always the last thing to start.
Besides, Win2 boots some services in parallel, while in Linux we still boot all of them sequentially, waiting for [OK] string before starting the next one. The only way to paralelize the sequence is to track dependencies between services. In Gentoo there are some efforts to do the parallel boot.
But as for now, Linux is (by dfault) is oriented for servers, and GUI login is the last (ltterally last) thing you need on your server.
Less is more !
Besides, Win2 boots some services in parallel, while in Linux we still boot all of them sequentially, waiting for [OK] string before starting the next one. The only way to paralelize the sequence is to track dependencies between services. In Gentoo there are some efforts to do the parallel boot.
How are they doing it?
I've often thought that we should be booting up our computers with a parallel invocation of "make". Then when adding a new service you would have none of this "what number between 0 and 100 should I assign?" foolishness: just write a three line makefile that includes all the dependencies that your service has on others.