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
