none (none.delete@this.none.com) on November 26, 2013 7:20 am wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on November 26, 2013 6:53 am wrote:
> > Eric (eric.kjellen.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 26, 2013 4:05 am wrote:
> > > Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.linux-foundation.org) on November 25, 2013 12:29 pm wrote:
> > > > And the old Atom really was pretty bad at some general-purpose stuff. That VR-zone link
> > > > says KNL is 72 modified Silvermont cores, so it should be much better in that regard.
> > > >
> > > > Linus
> > >
> > > What I am mostly interested in is exactly how they are modified
> > > with regard to vector processing. The Knights
> > > Corner cores and those of its predecessors were basically P54C derivatives with an added 512-bit vector
> > > unit (for 16 DP FMA flops per core and cycle) but as we
> > > speculated in a different branch of the thread (what
> > > is now "3-TFLOPS-DGEMM") 72 Silvermont cores with a single 512-bit vector unit will not be enough to give
> > > the cited 3 DP peak TFLOPS at a reasonable clock frequency (they would have to run at 2.6 GHz).
> >
> > Why is 2.6GHz an unreasonable frequency?
> >
> > Intel's 14nm silvermont derivative is reported to have 2.7GHz clock.
>
> Try to put 72 of them along with 2 wide vector units and you'll see that doesn't seem
> reasonable even on 14nm :-)

Yes, judged by Avaton C2750, when running at max. frequency 72 Silvermont cores alone, without VPUs, would eat over 150W.
But why did you mention "2 wide vector units"? At 2.7 GHz one unit per core will do the job.