Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by Coottie, Sep 27, 2006.
Imagine the power draw.
Intel is way behind Sun on this. You can get Ultras with dozens of cores, each of which can execute multiple threads simultaneously. And I don't mean in 5 years. This is NOW.
I like how the article states, "Performance matters again... because now we are the performance leader." haha
can u run Ubuntu on a Sun??
no need, u can even run windows with that kind of power )
Linux runs on anything, but I don't know if Ubuntu will simply install on an Ultra.
If you have a Sun with 32 cores, you run Solaris on it. You could run Linux, but there's no point -- Solaris is a better OS to start with.
Woah, hold on a second here... This is the same company that thought we'd all be running 10GHz P4s by now. They failed at that so now they're making more cores. Lets just wait and see what they can actually do...
I think Ubuntu is only X86 and PPC. Debian runs on more, and then they have ports to other more-obscure hardware. I was looking at buying a (cheap) Sun at one stage, I might buy one faster than a Mac but PCs are where it's at for desktop computers (and Macs, but I will never buy one one). Not only do you have better cheap-choices for hardware, you have better choices for software (I wouldn't expect the GNU/Linux distros that run on Suns to be all that polished).
You're simple-minded in some ways...
I don't see anything wrong with the chips of 3 years ago. There's nothing I haven't been able to do with mine..
That's because the landscape changed. 64 bit was being demanded then AMD stepped in and took the innovation lead from INtel. They had to do something.
And did you look at that article?? They showed a prototype! And they are supposed to release quad processors by November. I'm not sure we'll get to exactly 80 but we seem to be well on the way to 80.
Solaris may be better or worse but I find those terms are relative though so what's best for one may not be best for another.
How much you wanna bet that's just eighty 486 processors ? Or one "80486?"
80 Pentium D's or Core Duo's...a nuclear power plants cooling systems penis would get so hard at the thought of cooling that, it could cut diamonds.
Well one thing is for sure, Intel is NOT just sitting around talking about it....they've invested 9 Billion Dollars in manufacturing!! Woah mamma!
I just found and watched his video address....damn there are some crazy things coming!
I am surprised to see Ubuntu for the UltraSparc T1. And yeah, I wouldn't expect anyone to get a Sun for a desktop PC.
Check out the UltraSparc T1: http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/index.xml
32 Simultaneous threads. One processor. Eight Cores. 4 threads per core. You would need 32 Intel/AMD cores to do that. Oh, and to top it off... it consumes less power than a light bulb.
And you can get multi-processor systems. I believe they go to 8-way? Thats... 256 threads executing simultaneously. Not bad. And since you run Linux on your desktop anyway... such a system would actually be viable for you. In practice, all Sun offers is a dual processor workstation. 8 would be excessive.
Now... okay, nobody that isn't doing particle physics needs a workstation like that. Still, its cool that they're out there.
Processors this powerful already exist. They just aren't made by Intel or AMD.
They are not true Quads though, they are two dual cores strapped together (yes, there really is a difference). It's the same trick they pulled with their first "dual core" processor. They are still playing catch-up with AMD, who does have a real quad-core processor in the pipe for early next year.
Somebody wake me when they actually ship an 80 core product.
Someone wake me when they make one core execute more than one thread. Then they don't need so many fucking cores.
A) GREAT!!! I didn't even know AMD had a dual core let alone a quad core. It's too bad they aren't getting the press that Intel is. However, it's great to hear that we'll have more than one alternative.
B) "Real" quad core and "fake" quad core sounds like the discussions between "real" multitasking (aka preemptive multitasking) and "fake" multitasking (aka non-preemptive mt). I remember people used to slam Windows for not being real as if that was a concern for the average consumer. MS however, knew what was important (*cough* viruses *cough*).
Wait...I thought a CPU could only ever execute one instruction anyways. So if it executes multiple instructions, isn't it "effectively" 2 CPUs??
So if you have 2 areas to execute instruction but they share cache, wait states, etc... that's like saying you only have 1 CPU that can execute multiple instructions/threads at the same time. But from a certain perspective, this can also be viewed as 2 processors. Right or am I confused???
No. Ultra T1 processors execute 4 threads simultaneously, from one core. Its just a different architecture.
Would need about 150gb of ram to make use of it though
This is only true for single threaded operations. Multi-tasking and applications that are multi-threaded benefit hugely from multi-cores in Opterons and Duos. For servers its about scaling to handle many simultaneous requests, not getting there faster for one task. And the cache sizes increase to acomodate the communication overhead.
You are wrong.