Article: Parallelism at HotPar 2010
By: Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com), August 5, 2010 3:27 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto@gmail.com) on 8/4/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>However that doesn't change the fact that in single-threaded applications which
>are not memory limited Nehalem seems to offer very little improvement in terms of per-clock performance over Penryn.
So your position is that Nehalem doesn't offer a lot more
per-clock performance than Penryn, except when you're using
the memory heavily and/or exploiting the extra threads
and extra L2 cache bandwidth, or doing something else
that Nehalem is good at ? That's so vague as to be hardly
worth arguing with. AFAIK Nehalem makes *everything* go
faster, and makes a lot of apps go a *lot* faster.
---------------------------
>However that doesn't change the fact that in single-threaded applications which
>are not memory limited Nehalem seems to offer very little improvement in terms of per-clock performance over Penryn.
So your position is that Nehalem doesn't offer a lot more
per-clock performance than Penryn, except when you're using
the memory heavily and/or exploiting the extra threads
and extra L2 cache bandwidth, or doing something else
that Nehalem is good at ? That's so vague as to be hardly
worth arguing with. AFAIK Nehalem makes *everything* go
faster, and makes a lot of apps go a *lot* faster.
