Article: Parallelism at HotPar 2010
By: Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com), August 3, 2010 11:23 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 8/3/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>I get the sense that they made a deliberate decision to optimize for throughput
>at the cost of per-core performance (whereas Intel has not made that choice for mainstream parts).
That's debatable, Nehalem doesn't seem to offer much improvement in per-core performance over Core 2 (in my experience at least) and where it does it's marginal and partly due to its ability to dynamically "out-clock" Core 2 on single/lightly threaded workloads. Some of the choices Intel made in Nehalem were clearly detrimental for that type of workloads (like split L2 caches) but offered significant advantages for throughput.
---------------------------
>I get the sense that they made a deliberate decision to optimize for throughput
>at the cost of per-core performance (whereas Intel has not made that choice for mainstream parts).
That's debatable, Nehalem doesn't seem to offer much improvement in per-core performance over Core 2 (in my experience at least) and where it does it's marginal and partly due to its ability to dynamically "out-clock" Core 2 on single/lightly threaded workloads. Some of the choices Intel made in Nehalem were clearly detrimental for that type of workloads (like split L2 caches) but offered significant advantages for throughput.
