none (none.delete@this.none.com) on November 26, 2013 4:33 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). The question
> > that puzzles me is how Intel, if Heise.de's claim is correct that KNL will be based on 72 cores and Justin
> > Rattner's words in 2011 that future MIC will be derived from Atom cores means that the KNL cores are Atom
> > based, have managed to make the cores execute 32 DP FLOP/cycle (something that would make the calculations
> > work out perfectly - it would give 3 DP TFLOPS at a very realistic 1.3 GHz).
>
> The VR Zone article linked in this thread claims that each core has 2 vector units, so
> I'd guess this means 2 FMA/cycle and you get your 32 DP FLOP/cycle.

Could you post the link again? I think I missed it wherever it was originally posted in the thread.