Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on January 3, 2015 1:30 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on January 3, 2015 1:11 pm wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on January 3, 2015 12:36 pm wrote:
> > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on January 3, 2015 12:02 pm wrote:
> > > > Eric Bron nli (eric.bron.delete@this.zvisuel.com) on January 2, 2015 2:28 pm wrote:
> > > > > > I still recall when he pretended that Intel had abandoned manycores with the new Xeon
> > > > > > Phi
> > > > >
> > > > > link ?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=143796&curpostid=143824
> > >
> > > So, Linus said that KNL is multicore called manycore fore marketing purpose. Where is he wrong?
> > >
> >
> > On that KNL is a manycore not a multicore.
>
> KNL cores are relatively big and fully cache-coherent to each other.
> To me it sounds much more like multicore than manycore.
> The only manycore-like feature is the absence of on-chip LLC.

Big and small are relative terms, but KNL cores are smaller than Skylake cores.

Cache-(in)coherence and on-chip LLC don't characterize the difference between many- and multicores.

> Anyway, in the absence of consensus definitions of manycore and multicore we can argue about it ad infinitum.

The differences between a Nvidia GPGPU and a Power8 CPU or between an Xeon Phi and a Skylake Xeon are real, we don't need any consensus to get that.