From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <086f4496e85bfab0a28a5c19dad17554@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  3 Mar 2009 22:30:29 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <49ADF30D.4070904@orcasystems.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks
Topicbox-Message-UUID: af10dc7c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I think the reason why you didn't see parallelism come out earlier in
> the PC market was because they needed to create new mechanisms for I/O.
>   AMD did this with Hypertransport, and I've seen 32-core (8-socket)
> systems with this.  Now Intel has their own I/O rethink out there.

i think what you're saying is equivalent to saying
(in terms i understand) that memory bandwidth was
so bad that a second processor couldn't do much work.

but i haven't found this to be the case.  even the
highly constrained pentium 4 gets some milage out of
hyperthreading for the tests i've run.

the intel 5000-series still use a fsb.  and they seem to
scale well from 1 to 4 cores.

are there benchmarks that show otherwise similar
hypertransport systems trouncing intel in multithreaded
performance?  i don't recall seeing anything more than
a moderate (15-20%) advantage.

- erik