By: jp (jipe4153.delete@this.gmail.com), July 29, 2012 2:12 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
aaron spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net) on July 28, 2012 6:54 am wrote:
> jp (jipe4153.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 28, 2012 2:00 am wrote:
> > Aha,
> so your using personal bias against an architecture?
> >
> No, I just find it
> funny when a company cannot consistently describe the basic parameters of their
> own product.
>
> > And your
> > mixing different system hardware
> components and want to enforce the same naming
> > convention.
> >
> They
> are all part of the same system, fyi.
>
> > Btw I would be careful using the
> term "cores" and instead talk
> > about SIMD units and FPUs.
> >
> No,
> cores is correct.
>
>
> > Global node bandwidth is cute, but a majority of
>
> > applications benefit from a high localized bandwidth. 51.2 is a small
> fraction
> > of 250+ .
> >
> And the 250 doesn't matter when it is
> bottle-necked to when you struggle to get 50% efficiency when running linpack.
Close your eyes, put your palms to your ears, and go "lalalala...."
> jp (jipe4153.delete@this.gmail.com) on July 28, 2012 2:00 am wrote:
> > Aha,
> so your using personal bias against an architecture?
> >
> No, I just find it
> funny when a company cannot consistently describe the basic parameters of their
> own product.
>
> > And your
> > mixing different system hardware
> components and want to enforce the same naming
> > convention.
> >
> They
> are all part of the same system, fyi.
>
> > Btw I would be careful using the
> term "cores" and instead talk
> > about SIMD units and FPUs.
> >
> No,
> cores is correct.
>
>
> > Global node bandwidth is cute, but a majority of
>
> > applications benefit from a high localized bandwidth. 51.2 is a small
> fraction
> > of 250+ .
> >
> And the 250 doesn't matter when it is
> bottle-necked to when you struggle to get 50% efficiency when running linpack.
Close your eyes, put your palms to your ears, and go "lalalala...."
