Sujet : Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
De : already5chosen (at) *nospam* yahoo.com (Michael S)
Groupes : comp.archDate : 23. Sep 2024, 09:53:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <20240923105336.0000119b@yahoo.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 01:34:55 +0000
mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 0:53:35 +0000, jseigh wrote:
On 9/22/2024 5:39 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
Speaking of memory models, remember when x86 didn't have
a formal memory model. They didn't put one in until
after itanium. Before that it was a sort of processor
consistency type 2 which was a real impedance mismatch
with what most concurrent software used a a memory model.
When only 1 x86 would fit on a die, it really did not mater
much. I was at AMD when they were designing their memory
model.
Joe Seigh
Why # of CPU cores on die is of particular importance?
According to my understanding, what matters is # of CPU cores with
coherent access to the same memory+IO.
For x86, 4 cores (CPUs) were relatively common since 1996. There
existed few odd 8-core systems too, still back in the last century.