someone (someone@somewhere.com) on 11/17/10 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 11/17/10 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Of course, Intel might also leave that up to the software...which
>>would be stupid, but also more philosophically consistent with EPIC.
>>
>>David
>
>Hmmmm.
>
>Montecito didn't leave management of its extremely coarse
>grained multi-threading up to software so why would Intel
>attempt that with Poulson's very likely much finer grained
>multi-threading?

I hope they wouldn't. In fact, I hope that everyone at Intel has gotten on-board the train of 'dynamic everything' (except your logic, static CMOS is fine!). Dynamic thread management makes a lot of sense.

DK