> > <p>So why should I be so happy about the future that > > hardware vendors promise? > Whether you are happy or not there is no alternative in > sight if you want more power than they can provide in a > single core. >
I read him as being sad. Reading between the lines, his point was that Intel has a near (or may be a bit more than that) monopoly on architecture. Even if some hardware geeks came up with a new architecture (instruction set) that gets more work done with the available transistor budget and clock as a single cpu, it would never get a foothold due to the Wintel situation. This is much like what happened to mainframes in the late 1960s.
The RISC thing has come and gone. We're left with an architecture that has reached its level of incompetence.
At risk of upsetting some readers, there is one problem not mentioned in the interview that does benefit from parallel execution in multi-[thread|core|processor] machines. I'll note that DB2's latest (off mainframe) version is now fully threaded. Set processing is inherently faster than sequential processing. Set thinking is not common, nor relevant in many arenas. But where it is, it loves such machines.
Flat View: This topic has 38 replies
on 39 pages
[
«
|
123456789
|
»
]
Previous Topic
