Article: Hot Chips XXI Preview
By: Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com), September 25, 2009 11:33 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 9/25/09 wrote:
---------------------------
> It's pretty hard for me to believe that your
> claims like "of course in-order system will
> clock higher, everything else being equal"
> or "Out-of-order adds complexity, so how
> could it clock faster?" root in theory.
David Kanter actually already answered this, but just to be clear, what of following do you dispute:
1) Out-of-order adds more transistors[1]
2) More transistors adds power
3) More power equals lower clock
There is more, of course, like complexity in general, die size, signal propagation etc., but I think the power issue is the clearest one.
And sorry, I don't have any references. These are such a fundamental claims that if you dispute them, I don't think there's any way for me to continue, with or without references, and we just have to agree to disagree. This isn't my area of expertise.
[1] Not in general case, of course, but in everything else being equal case. You can always pick horribly complex in-order core, throw most of it away and add simple OoO to what is left, if you want make that point.
>> So, really, stop implying that I have some
>> fanboyish agenda in this discussion. If any,
>> I'm a fanboy of theory over practise.
>
> No implications; I don't take you for anything
> else other than what your writing suggests
> (and hardly anyone will). Theoretical fanboyism
> in my books is not any better than any other
> fanboyism, that's all.
Please keep in mind that you're probably reading me wrong (at least seem so to me). You can blame me for that (for being a bad writer), but don't ignore it.
As for implications, you're right. You didn't imply, but pretty much said it straight. Just didn't use the word fanboy.
As for fanboyishim, in my book anyone who thinks he or someone else is not a fanboy of anything (e.g. claims to be completely objective) is delusional or lying. But I just probably used word fanboy wrong. Luckily everybody here understands that I'm not native English speaker.
> I lost count of how many times he adjusted
> his argument
You see adjusted arguments, I see people having trouble understand each other. You do understand that there's nothing bad in "adjusting arguments" as such? Especially if your not writing in your own language, your bound to make mistakes and use inprecise wordings.
I'm not going to go reading through this thread again, analyzing everything and pondering whether some "adjustment" was because of bad wording or because writer changed his mind but doesn't want to acknowledge that. What would be the point?
> Of course OoOE is not bound to constrain clock
> or result in inferior power efficiency as
> exemplified by *real* designs (as opposed to
> mysterious theory you refer to, which might
> say something different). But if that's the
> case indeed, I would strongly like to see some
> references.
So what's the deal with GPUs? I think you are referring to general purpose processors here. You do understand that I haven't? I don't think there is low-level theoretical general purpose anyway :) .
>> I don't know the right number if that's what
>> you mean. My comment was mostly a funny way
>> (see, a smiley) to point out the difficulty
>> of discussing practise.
>
> OK, so does it mean you have little interest
> in tech side of the discussion?
Well, I am interested, but I don't think there's any change of coming to some clear conclusion. I don't think we have enough of the right kind of data. If you are having trouble agreeing on number of pipeline stages, what change do you think there is to agree on low-level details?
> Actually, so far noone has seen a *single*
> reference to theory from you to support the
> "in-order system will clock higher" and other
> claims.
Well, I didn't believe someone would challenge the basic truths (I finally wrote them down at the beginning of the message so we'll see if the problem lies there). This line of conversation feels a bit like someone asking me to post some proof that gravity exists. I wouldn't know what to do.
> A factless discussion is a territory of *bigots*,
> theoretical fanboys would post some references.
I actually just checked from a dictionary what bigot means and now I'm highly insulted.
Just what do you think I'm being bigoty about? I honestly still have hard time believing that the facts are the problem. But if you disagree with the three I wrote to the beginning of the message, then I stand corrected and admit that the facts really were and are the problem.
>Btw, it was stated by me at least once in this very thread
Yes. That's exactly the problem (or one of the problems, if taken the view of whole thread). I can't fit all your statements into the same universe, ergo I don't understand what you mean or your not making any sense.
> or at least spend some time rereading the thread
> instead of making others repeat the same to you?
Re-reading or repeating the same doesn't help. If your not willing to explain from a different angle or perhaps just with different words and examples, don't expect me to suddenly see the light.
> I myself never felt a need for strict definition
> of adjectives like "embedded" or
> "general-purpose" (this is the first time I see
> such question asked) and I doubt someone like
> you can be satisfied even with an expert's
> answer.
Well, here I am grasping at straws. I was thinking that if you have some strict meaning for general-purpose (or some other term that, in my mind, doesn't have very strict definition), it might explain something.
By the way, I would think that expert's answer would be something along the lines "there is no strict definition" which would pretty much satisfy me.
See how wrong you have read me? There's a saying in Finnish, called Wiio's law, coined by a professor specialized to communications. It says that communication between people always fails, except when it by accident succeeds. I have found this to be pretty accurate describtion also in online world.
>> As for the straws, I don't feel like I need
>> to catch any, which just underlines the fact
>> that we are talking about different things
>> here. Or maybe in a different way, since my
>> different things theory doesn't seem to be
>> working either.
>
> Theory again? :) So where is a single
> reference or citation?
Sorry. Not theory, hypothesis. Do English speaking people actually differentiate between these in casual talk?
> Even more so when all one sees from a
> "theoretical fanboy" is many words, zero
> references.
Well, I thought you wanted me to dispute something like number of pipeline stages in EV5 or greatness of OoO in 603. If I would have thought you wanted me to prove more transistors => more power or OoO => more transistors, this conversation would have been different, though not necessarily any better.
-JLarja
---------------------------
> It's pretty hard for me to believe that your
> claims like "of course in-order system will
> clock higher, everything else being equal"
> or "Out-of-order adds complexity, so how
> could it clock faster?" root in theory.
David Kanter actually already answered this, but just to be clear, what of following do you dispute:
1) Out-of-order adds more transistors[1]
2) More transistors adds power
3) More power equals lower clock
There is more, of course, like complexity in general, die size, signal propagation etc., but I think the power issue is the clearest one.
And sorry, I don't have any references. These are such a fundamental claims that if you dispute them, I don't think there's any way for me to continue, with or without references, and we just have to agree to disagree. This isn't my area of expertise.
[1] Not in general case, of course, but in everything else being equal case. You can always pick horribly complex in-order core, throw most of it away and add simple OoO to what is left, if you want make that point.
>> So, really, stop implying that I have some
>> fanboyish agenda in this discussion. If any,
>> I'm a fanboy of theory over practise.
>
> No implications; I don't take you for anything
> else other than what your writing suggests
> (and hardly anyone will). Theoretical fanboyism
> in my books is not any better than any other
> fanboyism, that's all.
Please keep in mind that you're probably reading me wrong (at least seem so to me). You can blame me for that (for being a bad writer), but don't ignore it.
As for implications, you're right. You didn't imply, but pretty much said it straight. Just didn't use the word fanboy.
As for fanboyishim, in my book anyone who thinks he or someone else is not a fanboy of anything (e.g. claims to be completely objective) is delusional or lying. But I just probably used word fanboy wrong. Luckily everybody here understands that I'm not native English speaker.
> I lost count of how many times he adjusted
> his argument
You see adjusted arguments, I see people having trouble understand each other. You do understand that there's nothing bad in "adjusting arguments" as such? Especially if your not writing in your own language, your bound to make mistakes and use inprecise wordings.
I'm not going to go reading through this thread again, analyzing everything and pondering whether some "adjustment" was because of bad wording or because writer changed his mind but doesn't want to acknowledge that. What would be the point?
> Of course OoOE is not bound to constrain clock
> or result in inferior power efficiency as
> exemplified by *real* designs (as opposed to
> mysterious theory you refer to, which might
> say something different). But if that's the
> case indeed, I would strongly like to see some
> references.
So what's the deal with GPUs? I think you are referring to general purpose processors here. You do understand that I haven't? I don't think there is low-level theoretical general purpose anyway :) .
>> I don't know the right number if that's what
>> you mean. My comment was mostly a funny way
>> (see, a smiley) to point out the difficulty
>> of discussing practise.
>
> OK, so does it mean you have little interest
> in tech side of the discussion?
Well, I am interested, but I don't think there's any change of coming to some clear conclusion. I don't think we have enough of the right kind of data. If you are having trouble agreeing on number of pipeline stages, what change do you think there is to agree on low-level details?
> Actually, so far noone has seen a *single*
> reference to theory from you to support the
> "in-order system will clock higher" and other
> claims.
Well, I didn't believe someone would challenge the basic truths (I finally wrote them down at the beginning of the message so we'll see if the problem lies there). This line of conversation feels a bit like someone asking me to post some proof that gravity exists. I wouldn't know what to do.
> A factless discussion is a territory of *bigots*,
> theoretical fanboys would post some references.
I actually just checked from a dictionary what bigot means and now I'm highly insulted.
Just what do you think I'm being bigoty about? I honestly still have hard time believing that the facts are the problem. But if you disagree with the three I wrote to the beginning of the message, then I stand corrected and admit that the facts really were and are the problem.
>Btw, it was stated by me at least once in this very thread
Yes. That's exactly the problem (or one of the problems, if taken the view of whole thread). I can't fit all your statements into the same universe, ergo I don't understand what you mean or your not making any sense.
> or at least spend some time rereading the thread
> instead of making others repeat the same to you?
Re-reading or repeating the same doesn't help. If your not willing to explain from a different angle or perhaps just with different words and examples, don't expect me to suddenly see the light.
> I myself never felt a need for strict definition
> of adjectives like "embedded" or
> "general-purpose" (this is the first time I see
> such question asked) and I doubt someone like
> you can be satisfied even with an expert's
> answer.
Well, here I am grasping at straws. I was thinking that if you have some strict meaning for general-purpose (or some other term that, in my mind, doesn't have very strict definition), it might explain something.
By the way, I would think that expert's answer would be something along the lines "there is no strict definition" which would pretty much satisfy me.
See how wrong you have read me? There's a saying in Finnish, called Wiio's law, coined by a professor specialized to communications. It says that communication between people always fails, except when it by accident succeeds. I have found this to be pretty accurate describtion also in online world.
>> As for the straws, I don't feel like I need
>> to catch any, which just underlines the fact
>> that we are talking about different things
>> here. Or maybe in a different way, since my
>> different things theory doesn't seem to be
>> working either.
>
> Theory again? :) So where is a single
> reference or citation?
Sorry. Not theory, hypothesis. Do English speaking people actually differentiate between these in casual talk?
> Even more so when all one sees from a
> "theoretical fanboy" is many words, zero
> references.
Well, I thought you wanted me to dispute something like number of pipeline stages in EV5 or greatness of OoO in 603. If I would have thought you wanted me to prove more transistors => more power or OoO => more transistors, this conversation would have been different, though not necessarily any better.
-JLarja
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Hot Chips XXI Preview online | David Kanter | 2009/08/12 02:55 PM |
Hot Chips XXI Preview online | Groo | 2009/08/12 05:27 PM |
Hot Chips XXI Preview online | David Kanter | 2009/08/12 06:17 PM |
recent POWER7 info. from IBM | M.Isobe | 2009/08/16 02:04 AM |
Hot Chips XXI Preview online | slacker | 2009/08/12 08:11 PM |
Attending hot chips | David Kanter | 2009/08/12 08:53 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Daniel Bizó | 2009/08/13 12:05 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Wes Felter | 2009/08/13 11:17 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | anon | 2009/08/13 03:25 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/13 03:48 PM |
How much IPC | E | 2009/08/14 01:16 AM |
How much IPC | hobold | 2009/08/14 03:03 AM |
How much IPC | a reader | 2009/08/15 10:26 AM |
How much IPC | hobold | 2009/08/15 10:58 AM |
How much IPC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/15 12:09 PM |
How much IPC | hobold | 2009/08/15 12:45 PM |
How much IPC | Euronymous | 2009/08/15 01:41 PM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/16 01:13 AM |
How much IPC | Anonymous | 2009/08/16 02:07 AM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/16 03:49 AM |
How much IPC | EduardoS | 2009/08/16 07:04 AM |
How much IPC | Anonymous | 2009/08/16 05:26 PM |
How much IPC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/16 07:49 AM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/16 09:32 AM |
How much IPC | EduardoS | 2009/08/16 07:09 AM |
How much IPC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/16 08:12 AM |
How much IPC | a reader | 2009/08/16 11:41 AM |
How much IPC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/16 12:21 PM |
How much IPC | none | 2009/08/16 01:30 PM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/16 11:32 PM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/17 12:09 AM |
How much IPC | none | 2009/08/17 02:29 AM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/17 05:25 AM |
Speculation and waste | David Kanter | 2009/08/17 10:03 AM |
Speculation and waste | ? | 2009/08/18 11:59 AM |
Speculation and waste | David Kanter | 2009/08/18 12:22 PM |
Speculation and waste | anon | 2009/08/19 02:52 AM |
Speculation and waste | TruePath | 2009/09/27 06:23 AM |
How much IPC | none | 2009/08/18 01:55 AM |
How much IPC | anon | 2009/08/18 02:27 AM |
How much IPC | anon | 2009/08/16 10:05 PM |
How much IPC | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/17 10:17 AM |
How much IPC | _Arthur | 2009/08/17 03:23 PM |
How much IPC | David Kanter | 2009/08/17 03:38 PM |
How much IPC | Michael S | 2009/08/17 03:39 PM |
How much IPC | David Kanter | 2009/08/17 03:48 PM |
How much IPC | Michael S | 2009/08/17 05:03 PM |
How much IPC | _Arthur | 2009/08/17 05:33 PM |
How much IPC | Michael S | 2009/08/17 05:56 PM |
How much IPC | _Arthur | 2009/08/17 08:48 PM |
How much IPC | Michael S | 2009/08/18 03:07 AM |
limits of sorting | hobold | 2009/08/18 04:26 AM |
limits of sorting | Michael S | 2009/08/18 05:26 AM |
limits of sorting | _Arthur | 2009/08/18 06:03 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 06:32 AM |
limits of sorting | Michael S | 2009/08/18 07:17 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 08:22 AM |
limits of sorting | _Arthur | 2009/08/18 08:57 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 09:30 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 09:45 AM |
limits of sorting | Michael S | 2009/08/18 09:50 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 10:09 AM |
limits of sorting | Michael S | 2009/08/18 10:33 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 10:53 AM |
limits of sorting | Michael S | 2009/08/18 11:28 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 12:01 PM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/18 06:40 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/18 07:22 PM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | David Kanter | 2009/08/18 07:49 PM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/19 05:56 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | David Kanter | 2009/08/19 08:26 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/19 08:47 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | slacker | 2009/08/19 09:52 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/19 10:10 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | slacker | 2009/08/19 11:36 PM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | slacker | 2009/08/19 11:45 PM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/20 05:28 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | slacker | 2009/08/20 06:32 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | Aaron Spink | 2009/08/20 12:08 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | Rob Thorpe | 2009/08/20 08:31 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | David Kanter | 2009/08/20 09:58 AM |
You work on EDA right Richard? | Rob Thorpe | 2009/08/20 04:10 PM |
limits of sorting | rwessel | 2009/08/18 07:56 PM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/18 11:11 PM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/18 11:25 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/19 06:32 AM |
limits of sorting | Rob Thorpe | 2009/08/19 07:12 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/19 07:46 AM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/19 08:43 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/20 07:47 AM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/20 08:20 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/20 11:12 PM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/21 02:08 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/21 05:15 AM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/22 06:24 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/22 07:27 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/22 08:39 PM |
limits of sorting | ? | 2009/08/23 05:07 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/23 05:53 AM |
limits of sorting | anonymous | 2009/08/23 11:42 AM |
useful link, thanks | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/23 05:23 PM |
limits of sorting | ? | 2009/09/04 04:05 AM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/23 09:26 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/24 07:13 AM |
wacky C++ features | a reader | 2009/08/24 09:59 PM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/25 03:18 AM |
wacky C++ features | a reader | 2009/08/25 07:04 AM |
wacky C++ features | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/25 10:21 PM |
wacky C++ features | none | 2009/08/26 05:47 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/26 08:09 AM |
wacky C++ features | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/27 06:25 AM |
wacky C++ features | Andi Kleen | 2009/08/25 12:06 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/25 03:10 AM |
wacky C++ features | Octoploid | 2009/08/25 03:40 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/25 05:15 AM |
wacky C++ features | Andi Kleen | 2009/08/25 07:58 AM |
thanks | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/25 08:07 AM |
thanks | Andi Kleen | 2009/08/25 11:28 AM |
wacky C++ features | anon | 2009/08/25 03:34 PM |
wacky C++ features | Andi Kleen | 2009/08/25 10:25 PM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/25 01:13 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/25 02:32 AM |
exception | a reader | 2009/08/25 07:32 AM |
exception | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/25 07:57 AM |
exception | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/25 08:30 AM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/25 08:56 PM |
correction | JasonB | 2009/08/25 09:47 PM |
correction | c++ | 2009/08/26 09:53 AM |
correction | JasonB | 2009/08/26 07:48 PM |
(new char[10]) does not have array type (NT) | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/27 06:27 AM |
correction | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/27 07:52 AM |
correction | c++ | 2009/08/27 09:29 AM |
comeau bugs and gcc features | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/27 09:51 AM |
comeau bugs and gcc features | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/27 11:28 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/26 09:17 AM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/26 07:46 PM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/27 09:41 AM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/27 09:33 PM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/28 01:24 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/28 01:27 AM |
wacky C++ features | Michael S | 2009/08/28 06:05 AM |
wacky C++ features | EduardoS | 2009/08/28 06:45 AM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/28 07:50 AM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/28 04:56 PM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/28 05:55 PM |
wacky C++ features | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/28 07:44 PM |
wacky C++ features | Konrad Schwarz | 2009/09/07 04:24 AM |
wacky C++ features | EduardoS | 2009/08/26 03:22 PM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/26 06:47 PM |
wacky C++ features | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/27 12:03 AM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/27 01:17 AM |
wacky C++ features | EduardoS | 2009/08/27 03:26 PM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/27 06:31 PM |
wacky C++ features | EduardoS | 2009/08/28 03:25 PM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/28 06:20 PM |
wacky C++ features | JasonB | 2009/08/27 09:56 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/21 07:33 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Michael S | 2009/08/21 08:07 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/21 08:33 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Paul | 2009/08/22 04:12 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | anon | 2009/08/21 11:18 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/21 11:45 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | anon | 2009/08/22 12:48 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Paul | 2009/08/22 04:25 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2009/08/22 07:02 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Paul | 2009/08/22 08:13 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | rwessel | 2009/08/24 03:09 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/22 05:28 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/22 06:22 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/22 06:52 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/22 07:47 PM |
Encapsulation | Konrad Schwarz | 2009/09/03 04:49 AM |
Encapsulation | anon | 2009/09/03 10:05 AM |
Encapsulation | ? | 2009/09/03 11:38 AM |
Encapsulation | Andi Kleen | 2009/09/04 01:41 AM |
Encapsulation | anon | 2009/09/04 07:24 AM |
Encapsulation | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/04 07:34 AM |
Encapsulation | Konrad Schwarz | 2009/09/07 03:28 AM |
Encapsulation | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/07 04:04 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | ? | 2009/09/03 11:51 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | no thanks | 2009/08/23 10:36 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/23 04:23 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/23 08:31 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/24 12:10 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/24 10:13 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/24 11:35 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/25 03:04 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/25 11:48 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/26 08:28 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/26 10:31 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/26 08:43 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | anon | 2009/08/26 01:48 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/26 03:28 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/26 08:06 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/27 03:44 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | Rob Thorpe | 2009/08/27 05:51 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/23 09:07 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | no thanks | 2009/08/23 09:44 PM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | JasonB | 2009/08/24 12:34 AM |
Windows vs Unix/Linux culture | anon | 2009/08/23 09:46 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/20 07:59 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/20 09:27 AM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/20 08:55 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/20 11:22 PM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/21 12:15 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/21 04:47 AM |
limits of sorting | ? | 2009/08/20 11:42 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/21 07:51 AM |
limits of sorting | Michael S | 2009/08/21 08:11 AM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/21 08:38 AM |
limits of sorting | dmsc | 2009/08/20 07:56 PM |
limits of sorting | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/20 08:20 PM |
limits of sorting | Rob Thorpe | 2009/08/20 08:09 AM |
limits of sorting | Aaron Spink | 2009/08/20 12:19 AM |
limits of sorting | JasonB | 2009/08/20 01:55 AM |
limits of sorting | Michael S | 2009/08/18 07:12 AM |
limits of sorting | hobold | 2009/08/18 07:55 AM |
limits of sorting | rwessel | 2009/09/08 02:52 PM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | Emil | 2009/09/08 07:06 PM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | rwessel | 2009/09/08 10:04 PM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | hobold | 2009/09/09 04:56 AM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/09 09:10 AM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | hobold | 2009/09/10 05:39 AM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/10 08:05 AM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | Potatoswatter | 2009/09/10 01:23 PM |
maximal theoretical sorting efficiency | dmsc | 2009/09/13 08:04 AM |
limits of sorting | Potatoswatter is back! | 2009/08/21 06:07 PM |
indeed it doesn't succeed in partitioning at all, but you get the idea ;) (NT) | Potatoswatter is back! | 2009/08/21 06:12 PM |
indeed it doesn't succeed in partitioning at all, but you get the idea ;) (NT) | Jouni Osmala | 2009/08/22 01:01 AM |
limits of sorting | hobold | 2009/08/22 07:25 AM |
limits of sorting | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/22 08:45 AM |
limits of sorting | David Kanter | 2009/08/22 10:16 AM |
limits of sorting | Jouni Osmala | 2009/08/22 12:01 PM |
Oops that was counting sort not bucket sort ;( | Jouni Osmala | 2009/08/22 12:07 PM |
close enough for my purposes | hobold | 2009/08/22 02:15 PM |
select vs. cmove | hobold | 2009/08/22 02:25 PM |
How much IPC | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2009/08/18 03:25 AM |
How much IPC | Vincent Diepeveen | 2009/08/19 06:46 AM |
How much IPC | _Arthur | 2009/08/19 09:32 AM |
How much IPC | hobold | 2009/08/18 04:17 AM |
How much IPC | Michael S | 2009/08/18 05:33 AM |
How much IPC | hobold | 2009/08/18 07:35 AM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/18 12:20 PM |
How much IPC | _Arthur | 2009/08/18 12:33 PM |
Nit picking | David Kanter | 2009/08/18 02:17 PM |
Nit picking | _Arthur | 2009/08/18 02:37 PM |
Nit picking | Michael S | 2009/08/18 03:02 PM |
Nit picking | S. Rao | 2009/08/18 05:02 PM |
Nit picking | anon | 2009/08/19 03:03 AM |
Nit picking | Michael S | 2009/08/18 02:53 PM |
Nit picking | JasonB | 2009/08/18 07:16 PM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/18 02:37 PM |
How much IPC | _Arthur | 2009/08/18 04:23 PM |
How much IPC | Matt Sayler | 2009/08/18 06:09 PM |
How much IPC | ? | 2009/08/18 11:59 PM |
nick's testcase | a reader | 2009/08/17 05:47 PM |
How much IPC | TruePath | 2009/09/27 10:00 AM |
Explicit dependency chains | David Kanter | 2009/09/30 07:56 PM |
How much IPC | TruePath | 2009/09/27 10:00 AM |
How much IPC | hobold | 2009/08/17 06:38 AM |
How much IPC | anon | 2009/08/16 09:59 PM |
Speeing Up Single Threads | TruePath | 2009/09/27 08:58 AM |
How much IPC | anon | 2009/08/15 08:01 PM |
How much IPC | EduardoS | 2009/08/16 07:06 AM |
How much IPC | sJ | 2009/08/16 09:48 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | anon | 2009/08/14 03:26 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/14 04:04 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jonathan Kang | 2009/08/21 03:43 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/21 04:08 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/21 04:33 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jonathan Kang | 2009/08/22 08:57 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/22 11:04 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jonathan Kang | 2009/08/25 12:33 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | ? | 2009/08/22 12:51 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | anon | 2009/08/22 10:56 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/22 11:38 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | ? | 2009/08/23 04:05 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | EduardoS | 2009/08/23 04:28 AM |
Programming Larrabee | ? | 2009/08/23 06:48 AM |
Programming Larrabee | EduardoS | 2009/08/23 07:41 AM |
Programming Larrabee | anon | 2009/08/23 08:29 AM |
Programming Larrabee | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/23 07:47 AM |
Programming Larrabee | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/23 09:11 AM |
Programming Larrabee | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/24 12:49 AM |
Programming Larrabee | ? | 2009/08/23 09:59 AM |
Programming Larrabee | Potatoswatter | 2009/08/24 12:44 AM |
Programming Larrabee | hobold | 2009/08/24 06:41 AM |
Programming Larrabee | none | 2009/08/24 08:15 AM |
Programming Larrabee | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/24 08:33 AM |
Programming Larrabee | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/24 10:30 PM |
Programming Larrabee | none | 2009/08/25 02:53 AM |
Programming Larrabee | mpx | 2009/08/25 09:16 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Joe | 2009/08/24 09:38 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/08/14 04:35 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | anon | 2009/08/14 09:18 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | EduardoS | 2009/08/14 05:34 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | anon | 2009/08/15 07:30 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | anon | 2009/08/15 08:23 AM |
improving Netburst | AM | 2009/08/15 02:36 AM |
improving Netburst | anon | 2009/08/15 08:10 AM |
improving Netburst | Euronymous | 2009/08/15 09:35 AM |
improving Netburst | Michael S | 2009/08/15 02:18 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jonathan Kang | 2009/08/21 04:10 PM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | anon | 2009/08/22 10:46 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jonathan Kang | 2009/08/25 10:39 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | slacker | 2009/08/26 05:50 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jonathan Kang | 2009/08/26 09:12 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | Jonathan Kang | 2009/08/26 09:45 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | someone | 2009/08/26 11:29 AM |
Power7 vs. single threaded performance and licensing | David Kanter | 2009/08/26 11:47 AM |
Not necessarily | Daniel Bizó | 2009/08/14 03:53 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | Thu Nguyen | 2009/08/25 04:05 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/25 06:47 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | hobold | 2009/08/25 07:50 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | G Webb | 2009/08/26 12:49 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | mpx | 2009/08/25 08:36 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/25 09:16 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | Jesper Frimann | 2009/08/27 09:18 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/27 11:53 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/27 01:00 PM |
new POWER7 info .. | a reader | 2009/08/27 04:21 PM |
new POWER7 info .. | David Kanter | 2009/08/27 09:32 PM |
new POWER7 info .. | a reader | 2009/08/28 08:45 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | hobold | 2009/08/28 05:00 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/28 06:51 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | hobold | 2009/08/28 07:44 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/28 08:10 AM |
Non Autopar submissions for Nehalem | IlleglWpns | 2009/08/28 10:41 AM |
Non Autopar submissions for Nehalem | David Kanter | 2009/08/28 11:07 AM |
Non Autopar submissions for Nehalem | someone | 2009/08/28 12:00 PM |
new POWER7 info .. | mas | 2009/08/26 12:25 AM |
An EV8 lite? (NT) | anon | 2009/08/26 09:21 AM |
An EV8 lite? => Piranha? | M. | 2009/08/30 04:54 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | Mark Roulo | 2009/08/27 06:51 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/27 07:03 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | a reader | 2009/08/27 09:55 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/27 11:58 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | a reader | 2009/08/27 04:11 PM |
new POWER7 info .. | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/08/28 12:17 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | someone | 2009/08/28 05:27 AM |
new POWER7 info .. | a reader | 2009/08/28 09:07 AM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/28 11:15 AM |
OOOE for low power | someone | 2009/08/28 11:39 AM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/28 01:55 PM |
OOOE for low power | Mark Roulo | 2009/08/28 03:16 PM |
OOOE for low power | Mark Roulo | 2009/08/28 03:44 PM |
Atom uarch | David Kanter | 2009/08/28 08:19 PM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/28 08:07 PM |
OOOE for low power | someone | 2009/08/28 04:18 PM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/29 01:55 AM |
OOOE for low power | someone | 2009/08/29 07:21 AM |
OOOE for low power | a reader | 2009/08/29 09:14 AM |
OOOE for low power | someone | 2009/08/29 09:56 AM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/29 10:08 AM |
OOOE for low power | Michael S | 2009/08/29 11:27 AM |
OOOE for low power | a reader | 2009/08/29 04:50 PM |
OOOE for low power | anonymous | 2009/08/29 07:17 PM |
OOOE for low power | Michael S | 2009/08/30 12:07 AM |
OOOE for low power | Jonathan Kang | 2009/09/01 05:44 AM |
OOOE for low power | Michael S | 2009/09/01 04:21 PM |
OOOE for low power | Mark Roulo | 2009/09/01 05:53 PM |
OOOE for low power | Wilco | 2009/09/02 02:27 AM |
OOOE for low power | Mark Roulo | 2009/09/02 08:46 AM |
OOOE for low power | Wilco | 2009/09/02 04:52 PM |
Define "emulate" (NT) | Michael S | 2009/09/02 11:44 PM |
Define "emulate" | Wilco | 2009/09/03 12:33 AM |
Define "emulate" | none | 2009/09/03 04:46 AM |
Define "emulate" | Adrian | 2009/09/03 10:45 AM |
Define "emulate" | Wilco | 2009/09/03 02:20 PM |
Define "emulate" | none | 2009/09/03 10:41 PM |
Define "emulate" | Wilco | 2009/09/04 03:30 AM |
low power ARM chips | Michael S | 2009/10/31 02:32 PM |
low power ARM chips | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/10/31 04:05 PM |
low power ARM chips | Michael S | 2009/10/31 04:45 PM |
low power ARM chips | t | 2009/10/31 05:21 PM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/29 10:07 AM |
OOOE for low power | someone | 2009/08/29 12:40 PM |
OOOE for low power | a reader | 2009/08/29 05:03 PM |
OOOE for low power | anonymous | 2009/08/29 07:13 PM |
OOOE for low power | someone | 2009/08/30 07:35 AM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/30 02:32 PM |
OOOE for low power | Matt Sayler | 2009/08/31 01:38 PM |
OOOE for low power | David Kanter | 2009/08/30 12:07 PM |
OOOE for low power | Michael S | 2009/08/29 11:44 AM |
TTM | Michael S | 2009/08/29 12:24 PM |
TTM | Foo_ | 2009/08/29 01:40 PM |
TTM | Michael S | 2009/08/29 02:10 PM |
TTM | anon | 2009/08/29 07:33 PM |
TTM | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/29 09:49 PM |
TTM | anon | 2009/08/30 06:07 AM |
TTM | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/30 09:31 PM |
Area, power and Atom | David Kanter | 2009/08/30 10:36 PM |
Area, power and Atom | Michael S | 2009/08/31 12:18 AM |
Area, power and Atom | a reader | 2009/08/31 08:44 AM |
Area, power and Atom | Michael S | 2009/08/31 12:19 PM |
Area, power and Atom | a reader | 2009/08/31 02:53 PM |
Area, power and Atom | anonymous | 2009/08/31 04:17 PM |
Area, power and Atom | Gabriele Svelto | 2009/08/31 03:41 PM |
64-bit disabled Atoms | Foo_ | 2009/09/02 04:38 AM |
64-bit disabled Atoms | Robert David Graham | 2009/09/02 12:56 PM |
64-bit disabled Atoms | anon | 2009/09/02 02:14 PM |
64-bit disabled Atoms | anonymous | 2009/09/02 04:30 PM |
TTM | Michael S | 2009/08/30 11:49 PM |
TTM | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/31 11:23 PM |
TTM | Paul | 2009/08/30 06:38 AM |
TTM | Paul | 2009/08/30 06:40 AM |
TTM | Mark Roulo | 2009/08/30 09:50 AM |
TTM | Paul | 2009/08/30 09:54 AM |
TTM | Mark Roulo | 2009/08/30 10:16 AM |
TTM | Foo_ | 2009/09/02 04:31 AM |
OOOE for low power | Rob Thorpe | 2009/08/30 09:19 AM |
OOOE for low power | Michael S | 2009/08/29 11:16 AM |
OOOE for low power | Jukka Larja | 2009/08/29 09:40 PM |
OOOE for low power | Michael S | 2009/08/30 12:04 AM |
OOOE and cache/mem sizes | Richard Cownie | 2009/08/28 05:30 PM |
OOOE and cache/mem sizes | Linus Torvalds | 2009/08/31 10:53 PM |
OOOE and cache/mem sizes | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/01 04:15 AM |
OOOE and pipe length etc. | AM | 2009/09/01 08:35 AM |
OOOE and pipe length etc. | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/01 08:57 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | AM | 2009/09/02 01:34 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/02 05:35 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Martin Høyer Kristiansen | 2009/09/02 06:19 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | anon | 2009/09/02 09:43 PM |
OOOE and clock rate | AM | 2009/09/03 02:52 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/03 07:34 AM |
OOOE impacts | AM | 2009/09/04 02:04 AM |
OOOE impacts | David Kanter | 2009/09/04 10:12 AM |
OOOE impacts | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/06 12:16 PM |
OOOE impacts | AM | 2009/09/07 03:47 AM |
OOOE impacts | Martin Høyer Kristiansen | 2009/09/07 06:03 AM |
Does IBM lie about PPC603 being OoO chip? | AM | 2009/09/08 03:13 AM |
No, but... | Michael S | 2009/09/08 07:05 AM |
No, but... | hobold | 2009/09/09 05:09 AM |
OOOE impacts | JS | 2009/09/07 06:34 AM |
Are Sandpile and others wrong about 0.28 um? | AM | 2009/09/08 03:12 AM |
OOOE impacts | someone | 2009/09/08 06:43 AM |
OOOE impacts | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/07 07:48 AM |
OOOE costs | David Kanter | 2009/09/07 12:07 PM |
OOOE impacts | AM | 2009/09/08 03:11 AM |
OOOE impacts | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/10 01:53 AM |
OOOE impacts | AM | 2009/09/11 04:35 AM |
OOOE impacts | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/11 08:38 AM |
OOOE impacts | AM | 2009/09/12 05:06 AM |
OOOE impacts | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/12 11:36 PM |
OOOE impacts | AM | 2009/09/14 04:39 AM |
OOOE impacts | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/14 06:18 AM |
if-ex distance | AM | 2009/09/15 05:16 AM |
small addendum | AM | 2009/09/19 03:54 AM |
small addendum | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/19 09:51 PM |
small addendum | AM | 2009/09/20 06:54 AM |
small addendum | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/20 01:16 PM |
small addendum | Thiago Kurovski | 2009/09/20 04:51 PM |
small addendum | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/20 09:21 PM |
small addendum | Thiago Kurovski | 2009/09/21 06:59 AM |
small addendum | AM | 2009/09/21 03:14 AM |
small addendum | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/21 10:21 PM |
small addendum | AM | 2009/09/22 03:01 AM |
small addendum | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/22 11:31 PM |
small addendum | AM | 2009/09/23 08:35 AM |
small addendum | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/23 10:31 PM |
small addendum | AM | 2009/09/24 12:13 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/24 09:39 PM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/09/25 05:18 AM |
Back to bits | Michael S | 2009/09/25 07:14 AM |
Back to bits | Thiago Kurovski | 2009/09/25 11:24 AM |
Back to bits | Wilco | 2009/09/25 03:18 PM |
Back to bits | Thiago Kurovski | 2009/09/26 09:12 AM |
Back to bits | Michael S | 2009/09/26 08:54 AM |
Back to bits | Thiago Kurovski | 2009/09/26 09:05 AM |
Back to bits | Michael S | 2009/09/26 09:16 AM |
Agree, with very minor change. | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/25 09:37 PM |
Back to bits | AM | 2009/09/26 06:16 AM |
Back to bits | Michael S | 2009/09/26 09:13 AM |
OT metadiscussion | David Kanter | 2009/09/25 12:23 PM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/09/26 05:55 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/25 11:33 PM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/09/26 05:50 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/27 02:16 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Michael S | 2009/09/27 04:58 AM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/09/28 04:07 AM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/09/28 03:43 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/29 12:45 AM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/09/30 03:13 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/01 01:34 AM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/10/01 04:05 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/02 12:38 AM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/10/03 07:19 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/04 03:38 AM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/10/04 08:27 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/04 11:48 PM |
OT metadiscussion | AM | 2009/10/05 07:13 AM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/05 11:36 PM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/06 04:37 AM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/07 03:15 AM |
About teaching | anon | 2009/10/07 12:39 PM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/08 03:11 AM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/09 04:10 AM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/09 05:40 AM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/09 09:02 PM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/09 11:24 PM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/10 10:50 PM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/12 02:02 AM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/12 10:51 PM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/13 04:06 AM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/13 11:33 PM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/14 03:36 AM |
About teaching | Jukka Larja | 2009/10/14 08:19 PM |
About teaching | AM | 2009/10/15 04:22 AM |
About teaching | Salvatore De Dominicis | 2009/10/12 02:23 AM |
About teaching | Dean Kent | 2009/10/12 12:25 PM |
About teaching | Salvatore De Dominicis | 2009/10/13 02:11 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Seni | 2009/09/26 06:26 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Wilco | 2009/09/26 08:08 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/27 02:18 AM |
OT metadiscussion | Michael S | 2009/09/27 05:12 AM |
small addendum | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/24 10:04 PM |
small addendum | AM | 2009/09/25 05:04 AM |
extra stage in EV6 | AM | 2009/09/26 06:29 AM |
PPC603 does OoOE | hobold | 2009/09/08 05:40 AM |
OOOE impacts | someone | 2009/09/08 05:39 AM |
EV6 | AM | 2009/09/09 04:33 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Seni | 2009/09/02 09:11 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Linus Torvalds | 2009/09/02 06:48 PM |
OOOE and clock rate | anon | 2009/09/02 11:55 PM |
OOOE and clock rate | Wilco | 2009/09/03 12:44 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/03 01:02 AM |
OOOE and Itanium | AM | 2009/09/03 01:27 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Martin Høyer Kristiansen | 2009/09/03 03:41 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | anon | 2009/09/03 01:12 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Wilco | 2009/09/03 02:10 AM |
POWER6 skewed pipeline | Paul A. Clayton | 2009/09/03 11:22 AM |
POWER6 skewed pipeline | Anon4 | 2009/09/03 07:00 PM |
OOOE and clock rate | Mr. Camel | 2009/09/03 03:40 AM |
OOOE and clock rate | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/03 06:42 AM |
OOOE and pipe length etc. | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/01 09:01 AM |
OOOE and pipe length etc. | AM | 2009/09/02 01:32 AM |
OOOE and pipe length etc. | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/02 07:49 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/03 01:40 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2009/09/03 01:45 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/03 03:18 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2009/09/03 03:55 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/03 04:28 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2009/09/03 05:29 AM |
Amount of cache per core matters,and mem bandwith too (NT) | Jouni Osmala | 2009/09/03 07:44 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | rwessel | 2009/09/03 02:31 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/04 02:24 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | anon | 2009/09/03 06:40 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | a reader | 2009/09/03 09:20 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | anon | 2009/09/03 05:57 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | Jonathan Kang | 2009/09/03 02:30 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | David Kanter | 2009/09/03 04:38 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | Jonathan Kang | 2009/09/04 08:16 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | anon | 2009/09/03 06:07 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/04 02:20 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | Jonathan Kang | 2009/09/04 08:13 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | Dan Downs | 2009/09/04 08:38 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | Dan Downs | 2009/09/05 04:36 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | Anon | 2009/09/05 02:44 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/05 12:12 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/04 02:18 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | anon | 2009/09/04 08:18 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/04 11:53 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | anon | 2009/09/05 04:06 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | AM | 2009/09/05 09:14 AM |
LRB choice of P54 - Layout? | Anonymous | 2009/09/03 02:40 PM |
LRB choice of P54 - Layout? | anonymous | 2009/09/03 03:54 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | Jukka Larja | 2009/09/03 09:58 PM |
LRB choice of P54 | mpx | 2009/09/04 04:07 AM |
LRB choice of P54 | anon | 2009/09/03 02:02 AM |
OOOE and pipe length etc. | Gian-Carlo Pascutto | 2009/09/03 01:40 AM |
Larrabee: Pentium vs 486 vs 386 | Mark Roulo | 2009/09/03 04:26 PM |
Larrabee: Pentium vs 486 vs 386 | Michael S | 2009/09/03 05:14 PM |
Larrabee: Pentium vs 486 vs 386 | Mark Roulo | 2009/09/04 10:05 AM |
Larrabee: Pentium vs 486 vs 386 | Jonathan Kang | 2009/09/04 10:59 AM |
Larrabee: Pentium vs 486 vs 386 | Michael S | 2009/09/05 09:58 AM |
Larrabee: Pentium vs 486 vs 386 | James | 2009/09/07 03:15 AM |
Larrabee: Pentium vs 486 vs 386 | Mark Roulo | 2009/09/07 07:44 PM |
OOOE and pipe length etc. | Michael S | 2009/09/03 05:42 PM |
LRB core | AM | 2009/09/04 02:09 AM |
LRB core | Michael S | 2009/09/04 05:07 AM |
LRB core | anon | 2009/09/04 08:27 PM |
LRB core | Michael S | 2009/09/05 10:12 AM |
LRB core | anon | 2009/09/05 11:03 PM |
reasons for split I/D L1 caches | Michael S | 2009/09/06 04:10 AM |
reasons for split I/D L1 caches | anon | 2009/09/06 06:32 AM |
reasons for split I/D L1 caches | ? | 2009/09/06 10:35 AM |
reasons for split I/D L1 caches | megol | 2009/09/06 03:39 PM |
reasons for split I/D L1 caches | ? | 2009/09/07 04:20 AM |
reasons for split I/D L1 caches | anon | 2009/09/07 06:25 AM |
cache hinting | ? | 2009/09/07 07:10 AM |
cache hinting | anon | 2009/09/07 07:35 AM |
cache hinting | ? | 2009/09/07 09:10 AM |
cache hinting | anon | 2009/09/07 09:49 AM |
cache hinting | ? | 2009/09/07 10:37 AM |
Split and unified caches | David Kanter | 2009/09/06 01:38 PM |
Split and unified caches | anon | 2009/09/06 11:15 PM |
Split and unified caches | Michael S | 2009/09/07 12:40 AM |
Split and unified caches | anon | 2009/09/07 02:24 AM |
Split and unified caches | David Kanter | 2009/09/07 12:51 AM |
Split and unified caches | anon | 2009/09/07 02:13 AM |
LRB core | AM | 2009/09/05 12:08 AM |
LRB core | Linus Torvalds | 2009/09/05 10:47 AM |
LRB core | David Kanter | 2009/09/04 01:23 PM |
LRB core | Anon | 2009/09/04 06:32 PM |
LRB core | David Kanter | 2009/09/04 10:15 PM |
LRB core | Michael S | 2009/09/05 10:21 AM |
OOOE and cache/mem sizes | a reader | 2009/09/01 09:19 AM |
OOOE and cache/mem sizes | Richard Cownie | 2009/09/01 09:43 AM |
snapdraon? | Michael S | 2009/08/28 06:10 AM |
snapdraon? | a reader | 2009/08/28 08:51 AM |
Thanks (NT) | Michael S | 2009/08/29 12:53 PM |
snapdraon? | Paul | 2009/08/28 01:12 PM |
new POWER7 info .. | EduardoS | 2009/08/27 03:41 PM |
new POWER7 info .. | Jesper Frimann | 2009/08/28 05:03 AM |
Single threaded performance | David Kanter | 2009/08/28 10:52 AM |
Hot Chips XXI Preview online | hobold | 2009/08/13 07:30 AM |