rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 1, 2013 12:41 am wrote:
> Sebastian Soeiro (sebastian_2896.delete@this.hotmail.com) on July 31, 2013 2:15 pm wrote:
> > rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com) on July 30, 2013 7:01 pm wrote:
> > - The TLB lies in the store components of a core. (I know you said one TLB per CPU... but then
> > you said that the TLB lies in the store components, so you must've meant core, correct?)
>
>
> The term CPU has been slightly ambiguous for a long time. In the early days there were no multi-processor machines,
> and the term CPU was fairly unambiguous (although sometimes people made a distinction between the whole box,
> and the processor portion of the box - excluding memory, I/O channels, etc.). With multi-processor machines,
> you sometime saw references to the whole box as the CPU, or the collection of individual processors, although
> the individual "core" (although that term had yet to be invented) was the most common usage.
>
> With the advent of multi-core chips, you have a marketing term "CPU" applied to the thing you buy in
> a box marked "Intel" that you put in the socket on the motherboard. And we've started to call the individual
> items inside that thing "cores". Although cores are still individual processor (or CPUs).
>
> So yes, for clarity I should have probably said "core", but in a
> microarchitecturally context core and CPU are pretty synonymous.
>
> And don't get me started on Ethernet "switches". We had a perfectly good name for those ("bridges"), and switches
> performed an similar function but for circuit switched networks (as opposed to packet switched networks like
> Ethernet). But noooo... The marketing types decided they needed a "better" name... Than that nonsense got
> extended to other parts of the networking hierarchy. “Level 4 switches”?! You mean a *router*?
>
> Hmmm... Too late, I'm already started...
>

So I guess I shouldn't mention APUs around you, huh?

Opps :)