Chips too fast for programmers?

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
Bernie64
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:23 pm

Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by Bernie64 »

This is from a cnnfn article.
Stanford professor!!!!!!
Didn't find his name in search.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/13/technol ... 2008081405

:idea:
Instinct-that which uses the other 90% of the brain conscious thought does not.
7im
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by 7im »

The PPL has been in the news a lot the last few months, ever since the PPL opened in May. Borderline sensationalist journalism. OMG! My computers are going to slow down because "they" can't program the software to run on multi-cored computers. Big deal. They still run just fine on a single core of that multi core system.

However, the PPL is still needed to help develop methods to take fuller advantage of that multi-core future.

http://ppl.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/ ... Laboratory
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
divery4eyes
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:10 pm
Hardware configuration: E2180 @1.08, 2Gb ddr2, 500Gb hd, Last XP, 8800 GT 1835 shader
AMD Athlon x2 2200, 2GB DDR2, ?? GB HD, Last XP, GT 240 1600 shader
Location: off of I40 in Arkansas

Re: Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by divery4eyes »

did you read the section of the article where he states that sales might be hurt by the future multi core processors might actually run processes slower :lol:
correct me if i am wrong, but last time i checked processors get more efficient not less. and another thing, he states that multi core processors dont perform any faster than their single core brethren? what?
a P4 running just as fast as a C2D :roll:

whomever wrote that article should do their research
over 30,000 werk units
"Everyone is in the same boat. Grab an oar, and paddle some WU's." -RAH

Still GPU folding with 8.2 teraflops
7im
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by 7im »

What they probably have done is fallen in to the GHz speed trap. Intel pushed the "GHz is king" in performance for so long that most average users think a 2.8 GHz P4 will do things faster than a 2.1 GHz Allendale. (Okay, there are a few select things the P4 will still do faster, but for the most part...)

And Intel is pushing the GHz speed down even more as it lumps more cores together on the same chip to keep the heat and power down, but Intel is also increasing the processor efficiency at the same time. So a 1.6 Nehalem is probalby about a 2.4 Conroe, which is about a 3.2 P4. ;)
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Evil Penguin
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:34 am
Location: Texas, United States

Re: Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by Evil Penguin »

I think you are giving the P4 too much credit, 7im.
A Conroe/Penryn would stomp all over Prescott like there was no tomorrow.
But I get where you are going with this...
DjSoulshot
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:49 pm

Re: Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by DjSoulshot »

Lemme copypaste a mail i just sent him:

Hey Michael

First of all thanks for a good article, it's a serious look at a problem that's all too real for a lot of developers to face. However i have to say that you are incorrect in the assumption that anything will go slower at all. People who are claiming this do not understand the significant boosts that single cores have gone through in the last few years. Even though their "speed", how fast they move, as denoted by the megahertz denominator, has actually decreased, the chips themselves are a lot quicker. While chips might only be running at 2400mhz today compared to the late pentium chips in the mid-3000mhz categories, they do a lot more work per hertz. This often amounts to an increase in actualy work being done per core of almost 100% compared to that time, making the 2400mhz chip run equally fast as a 4800mhz chip would have years ago. This is also the reason why Intel have been able to make slow chips such as the Atom chip, being used by the biggest computer companies in the world right now to create cheap computers. The Atom chip runs extremely slowly, but is often more than enough to get really simple everyday tasks done as quickly as you would need them. This would have been unthinkable a few years ago, and drives amongst other things the new version of the Asus EEE PC.

The real issue really is that things are just not getting faster as quickly as they should - a lot of programs are, as you nicely put, only using one chunk of processing power. But this does not have to equal a problem, as the programs that do not fully utilize multicore processors often really don't need that power. Scientific applications, computergames, video decoding and other heavy tasks are already using as many cores as you can have in a computer effectively.

Hopefully you'll be able to add some of this to the article or maybe even do a followup article at another point, cause i have been amazed at the amount of work i'm able to achieve compared to a few years ago. Also the initative by Mr. Olukotun's stanford collegues known as folding@home has already proven how effectively it can use a variety of different computer processing options, including both single and multicore processors, and exciting new technologies as the very effective Playstation 3 chips based on the cell architecture and the massively parallel computer graphics cards.

Thanks for the time

Niels Madsen

And Intel really isn't pushing ghz down as you say, there are some fantastically quick quadcores already, and the new dualcores are reasily hitting 4+ ghz overclocked, and shipping at 3+ ghz stock speeds. This will happen with quad cores over time too, and the octocores and xxx cores to come.
DjSoulshot
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:49 pm

Re: Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by DjSoulshot »

7im wrote:What they probably have done is fallen in to the GHz speed trap. Intel pushed the "GHz is king" in performance for so long that most average users think a 2.8 GHz P4 will do things faster than a 2.1 GHz Allendale. (Okay, there are a few select things the P4 will still do faster, but for the most part...)

And Intel is pushing the GHz speed down even more as it lumps more cores together on the same chip to keep the heat and power down, but Intel is also increasing the processor efficiency at the same time. So a 1.6 Nehalem is probalby about a 2.4 Conroe, which is about a 3.2 P4. ;)
Actually i almost think it's a 1.6 Penryn beating a 3.2 P4 by now, i believe the C2D chips were a good 25-30% more effective than the X2 chips, which were in turn 50% more effective than the late P4 chips. Penryn is even more effective than that. Nehalem, if true to it's promises, will keep this going, at which point they could ship a fantastic laptop with a 2ghz chip running on 32nm on sandy bridge with some fantastic batterytime potential, gonna be a fun couple of years the next ones, SSDs, Nehalem, DDR3, GDDR5 and all :D
Beberg
Pande Group Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:05 pm

Re: Chips too fast for programmers?

Post by Beberg »

Well I said this over a year ago...

http://www.interesting-people.org/archi ... 00024.html

It's barely even difficult anymore, and I think OpenCL will make is easy enough for anyone (Brook and CUDA are still rather difficult).
Post Reply