By: juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com), January 10, 2015 5:09 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Linus Torvalds (torvalds.delete@this.linux-foundation.org) on January 8, 2015 3:09 pm wrote:
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on January 7, 2015 6:03 am wrote:
> >
> > My point is that future applications will require the main processor to be a hundred/thousand manycore
> > because multicores don't scale up and cannot provide the needed throughput
>
> You're crazy. Manycore scales worse.
No, they have better performance per watt and performance per mm².
> You are basically asking for a pink unicorn, stating - without anything what-so-ever
> to back your statement up, despite decades of history showing that you're wrong
> - that that pink unicorn will happen, and will be much better.
>
> Because it's pink! And you're even willing to call something that is actually brown
> "pink", because just calling it that makes it magically better in your world.
Abandon the cavern for a while. Manycores are used from embbedded to supercomputers and will play a more important role in next years.
> You have absolutely zero technical reasons. You quote a few pie-in-the-sky
> PR blurbs as proof, and then you ignore actual technical arguments for why
> you're wrong by people who know that they are doing (which is not just me).
Published papers, patents, and books on programming are my main sources, which I cite often.
> > I asked Linus twice how he proposes to reach the target goals
> > and he twice avoided the question, he only writes ridiculous rants against manycores.
>
> I'm ignoring your most crazy things. Pink unicorns don't exist, and they wouldn't solve
> any problems anyway. I've told you why you are wrong, and how your examples are pure fluff
> and PR-speak, and how reality is actually moving away from your proposed solutions, because
> your proposed solutions have been shown - over and over again - to be pure BS.
You avoid the question again because you don't have any valid solution to the problem, I know.
> juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on January 7, 2015 6:03 am wrote:
> >
> > My point is that future applications will require the main processor to be a hundred/thousand manycore
> > because multicores don't scale up and cannot provide the needed throughput
>
> You're crazy. Manycore scales worse.
No, they have better performance per watt and performance per mm².
> You are basically asking for a pink unicorn, stating - without anything what-so-ever
> to back your statement up, despite decades of history showing that you're wrong
> - that that pink unicorn will happen, and will be much better.
>
> Because it's pink! And you're even willing to call something that is actually brown
> "pink", because just calling it that makes it magically better in your world.
Abandon the cavern for a while. Manycores are used from embbedded to supercomputers and will play a more important role in next years.
> You have absolutely zero technical reasons. You quote a few pie-in-the-sky
> PR blurbs as proof, and then you ignore actual technical arguments for why
> you're wrong by people who know that they are doing (which is not just me).
Published papers, patents, and books on programming are my main sources, which I cite often.
> > I asked Linus twice how he proposes to reach the target goals
> > and he twice avoided the question, he only writes ridiculous rants against manycores.
>
> I'm ignoring your most crazy things. Pink unicorns don't exist, and they wouldn't solve
> any problems anyway. I've told you why you are wrong, and how your examples are pure fluff
> and PR-speak, and how reality is actually moving away from your proposed solutions, because
> your proposed solutions have been shown - over and over again - to be pure BS.
You avoid the question again because you don't have any valid solution to the problem, I know.
