Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Aug 2010 23:24 UTC
Permalink for comment 438429
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-20
No matter how fast your processor is, you can only go as fast as the slowest path in your system. In most cases the slowest path is RAM. The case when a faster processor makes a big difference is when your data set can fit entirely in CPU's cache memory. However, as these processors are targeted for large database systems, there will be a lot of access to RAM, hence the super fast 5.2GHz CPU will spend a lot of time just waiting.
I don't know what tricks IBM engineers did to avoid RAM latency, I'm just speculating on the most obvious bottleneck such a system will have. The more you raise CPU speed, the closer you start approaching the point of diminishing returns. The future is parallel processing, and not just instruction level parallelism, but all the way up the stack to operating systems and user applications.