this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
34 points (80.4% liked)
PC Gaming
8581 readers
543 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is contrary to everything I know as a programmer currently. CPU is fast and excess cores still go underutilized because efficient paralell programming is a capital H Hard problem.
The weakest link in computing is RAM, which is why CPUs have 3 layers of caches, to try and optimize the most use out of the bottleneck memory BUS. Whole software architectures are modeled around optimizing cache efficiency.
I'm not sure I understand how just adding a more cores as a coprocesssor (not even a floating-point optimized unit which GPUs already are) will boost performance so much. Unless the thing can magically schedule single-threaded apps as parallel.
Even then, it feels like market momentum is already behind TPUs and "ai-enhancement" boards as the next required daughter boards after GPUs.
Eh, as always: It depends.
For example: memcpy, which is one of their claimed 100x performance tasks, can be IO-bound on systems, where the CPU doesn't have many memory channels. But with a well optimized architecture, e.g. modern server CPUs with a lot more memory channels available, it's actually pretty hard to saturate the memory bandwidth completely.