Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Oct 2006 22:09 UTC
Oracle and SUN Sun Microsystems says its new UltraSparc T1 microprocessor, nicknamed Niagara, is creating a big splash. Sun was set to report Monday that 60 percent of the trial units of Niagara, an open-source product, have been ordered by new customers. This indicates that the company is gaining market share from rivals such as IBM's Power and Intel's Itanium high-performance microprocessor architectures.
Thread beginning with comment 168165
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Unfortunately
by evad on Wed 4th Oct 2006 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Unfortunately"
evad
Member since:
2005-09-10

I realise the benefits of parallelism and I seriously believe the future of computing machines and the future of ubiquitous computing is with the parallel programming paradigm.

The only problem is we're quite obviously not there yet. Although programmers have to change (and at my University students are required to learn Occam, old, but, it teaches programmers the ideas and the parallel way of thinking), the programming world won't change overnight.

Hence my point, I believe, still stands, is Sun moving too far too fast - i.e. are they creating an ultra-parallel product where the number of applications that can really take advantage of that is minimal.

Even if they're not moving too fast I really do believe that the market for this isn't massive (yet) and as such it's not really fair to say that uptake of the T1 systems - which I trully believe are fantastic - show Sun is making a market share recovery and gaining share away from POWER and Itanium.

In your example one bodybuilder is 250lb and the rest are just 160lb. Lets say then that the 32 people have just say 50% of the strength and stamina of the bodybuilder. Obviously still here 32 of these will be better, even with the overhead of communication and syncing and waiting.

However, are Niagara's threads even 50% as fast as a standard single core'd modern Opteron? If they are then they're going to do a fantastic job in the real world.

Are the processing cores sufficiently powerful? Perhaps in reality should your example have been one 250lb body builder and 32 small children? Is that a better example when comparing an Opteron to a T1?

I don't know the answer, I'm just asking questions. I'm not attacking parallelism, I'm asking is T1 the best trade off between single threaded performance and parallelism.

corrected a minor spelling mistake

Edited 2006-10-04 09:30

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Unfortunately
by Arun on Wed 4th Oct 2006 16:34 in reply to "RE[7]: Unfortunately"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Hence my point, I believe, still stands, is Sun moving too far too fast - i.e. are they creating an ultra-parallel product where the number of applications that can really take advantage of that is minimal.

No, Look at all the benchmarks where through put matter. T2000/T1000 handily beat single thread multi core systems. This is using existing software no extra development needed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Unfortunately
by segedunum on Wed 4th Oct 2006 16:51 in reply to "RE[8]: Unfortunately"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

No, Look at all the benchmarks where through put matter. T2000/T1000 handily beat single thread multi core systems.

That's not an answer to his point:

...creating an ultra-parallel product where the number of applications that can really take advantage of that is minimal.

Parallel computing's usage is rising, but it's performance people really need. If it takes longer to do a single job in each case, no matter how many more jobs it can do, then it's not going to be of much use to many people, particularly in places like web farms. You try telling some stakeholder in a system, or a customer, why their transaction takes more time than anywhere else or takes longer than a system they used to have in.

What people need is a parallel processor with the performance to go with it.

As usual though, the Sun people around here are trying to fit square pegs in round holes when explaining Sun's, SPARC's (and Solaris') poor performance that we have all known exists over the years.

Edited 2006-10-04 16:59

Reply Parent Score: -1