Paul Rubin <http> wrote: > Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I feel the recent SMP hype (in general, and in Python) is a red herring. Why > > do I need that extra performance? What application would use it? > > How many mhz does the computer you're using right now have? When did > you buy it? Did you buy it to replace a slower one? If yes, you must > have wanted more performance. Just about everyone wants more > performance. That's why mhz keeps going up and people keep buying > faster and faster cpu's. > > CPU makers seem to be running out of ways to increase mhz. Their next > avenue to increasing performance is SMP, so they're going to do that > and people are going to buy those. Just like other languages, Python > makes perfectly good use of increasing mhz, so it keeps up with them. > If the other languages also make good use of SMP and Python doesn't, > Python will fall back into obscurity.
Just to back your point up, here is a snippet from theregister about Sun's new server chip. (This is a rumour piece but theregister usually gets it right!) Sun has positioned Niagara-based systems as low-end to midrange Xeon server killers. This may sound like a familiar pitch - Sun used it with the much delayed UltraSPARC IIIi processor. This time around though Sun seems closer to delivering on its promises by shipping an 8 core/32 thread chip. It's the most radical multicore design to date from a mainstream server processor manufacturer and arrives more or less on time. It goes on later to say "The physical processor has 8 cores and 32 virtual processors" and runs at 1080 MHz. So fewer GHz but more CPUs is the future according to Sun. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/07/sun_niagara_details/ -- Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list