Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jul 2005 13:29 UTC
Oracle and SUN This article describes in detail what to expect from Sun when it comes to the SPARC platform. The 8-core Niagara chip, now planned for early 2006, is the most impressive: "In practical terms, what Niagara delivers is a chip that consumes about 56 watts that has about the same performance on infrastructure workloads as a four-way SMP rig of Xeon processors or a two-way setup using dual-core Xeons. These Xeon setups will consume hundreds of watts per processor."
Thread beginning with comment 6455
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I really don't think Bjarne or Anders or James are the right guys to do concurrency right, they all did it wrong before or ignored the issue. Bjarne has already done enough damage on the sequential model in that IMO C++ is already too big and does not mesh with concurrency. C++ lets you build walking dead programs.

A decent concurrent language will emerge that plays communicating sequential processes with object management, it will probably use C style syntax, what it will be called I can only guess at. Such a language also needs a better cpu organisation than even these threaded engines, its the memory system that actually matters more, where is the object in memory protection?

There have been conncurent systems before, my moniker is a clue to that, and there will be again.

The Niagara and other threaded cpus like Raza and Ubicom are currently aimed at applications areas (throughput andembedded) that already have some sort of concurrent solution in mind.

For these threaded cpus to offer 32 or even more disposable threads to to the wider software community will require a more formal approach to concurrency where it just works is the norm.

BTW, most all hardware description languages are fully concurrent "and just work" when used by EEs to design hardware. If hardware and software look the same in some domains, there's a clue there.

Reply Parent Score: 2

pravda Member since:

To implement large scale "just works" concurrency, it will take more than just a new programming language.

I have some designs from CY2000 that are similar to what is now being done by Raza's MIPS system and possibly Niagara.

However, the programming language for what I designed is like nothing (mainstream) that exists today. It is more a special kind of algebra.

Which reminds me. Patents, patents, patents. So when Microsoft steals, they will pay.

Reply Parent Score: 1

transputer_guy Member since:

Links please on this language!

Reply Parent Score: 1