Date: 11 Jan 2006 10:36:56 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core vs HyperThreading vs Dual CPU Message-ID: <4464oq93on.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <AF82A130-2BDC-4C19-BDF6-983ABAF89803@submonkey.net> References: <20060110125050.A48499@ganymede.hub.org> <cb5206420601101006q7e0fbf55scf42b52f0890dc16@mail.gmail.com> <AF82A130-2BDC-4C19-BDF6-983ABAF89803@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> writes: > On 10 Jan 2006, at 18:06, Andrew P. wrote: > > > > By 2010 we'll see 4-core, 8-core and maybe even 16/32 solutions. > > We got those in 2005: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/index.xml That's a little different than what Andrew was describing as "multi-core," though. His definition was that it was exactly the same as having that many separate CPUs. Sun's definition in the new UltraSPARC chips is separate ALUs but other resources are not duplicated. Perhaps most notably, there is only one floating point unit shared between all of the cores on the chip. Personally, I don't think there's a strong enough argument for one definition to be "right" and the other "wrong," so you just have to be aware which one you're using. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area http://be-well.ilk.org/~lowell/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4464oq93on.fsf>