Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: costs of IPC
From: Jörn Nettingsmeier (nettings_AT_folkwang-hochschule.de)
Date: Wed May 16 2001 - 23:22:41 EEST
Steve Harris wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 01:47:17PM +0200, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> > > http://plugin.org.uk/spmp/worker-diff3.png
> >
> > The difference peak correspond to total_footprint == cache_size.
>
> That was my conclusion too. I can test this on our 6x 700MHz 2meg cache
> machine when it arrives. My opinion is that this is what desktop machines
> of the future will resemble. Though with faster ram.
here i disagree.
while it would be nice it it were so, i don't see that happen.
right now, 2-way smp is the only thing that where power scales to
costs for home users.
and even there... - how long have we been waiting for that dual
1.3gig athlon chipset ?
no, unless the big silicon giants switch over to multiple cpus per
chip, we won't have more than 2. and even that is questionable, see
the p4. smp seems the last thing the marketing folk of intel and amd
care about.
as to cache size, i think 2 meg is out of the question for consumer
hardware. the xeons are painfully expensive compared to 256k
coppermines, and why should that ever change ? (btw, do the xeons
run the 2megs at full clock speed ?)
somebody has pointed out before the widening gap between processor
and ram speed.
it seems that larger smp machines are waaay too tricky to program
and make real use of to ever hit the mass market (= become
affordable for power users).
does windows xp even support 2-way smp ? not that i care, but this
fact is crucial to the market prices of such hardware.
regards,
jörn
-- Jörn Nettingsmeier home://Kurfürstenstr.49.45138.Essen.Germany phone://+49.201.491621 http://icem-www.folkwang-hochschule.de/~nettings/ http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed May 16 2001 - 23:47:10 EEST
