Holy Hyperthreading Batman
-
We got a new machine in at work. This one is in a very deep 1U package and it has two processor chips, each with twenty hyperthreaded cores. This means it can handle eighty (that's 80) threads simultaneously. WOW ! Unfortunately, I seem to be seeing a bug with the OMP library. It doesn't seem to handle that many threads correctly. Here's a screenshot from the task manager showing all of those little CPU usage graphs : https://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/17/98/38/10/taskma10.png[^]. I have never seen that many at once.
That's cute. AMD just gave Intel the finger with the announcement of the 2nd gen Threadripper. 32 cores, 64 threads, and 250W of heat to get rid of. Drop of a couple of those on a motherboard.
Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak -
That's cute. AMD just gave Intel the finger with the announcement of the 2nd gen Threadripper. 32 cores, 64 threads, and 250W of heat to get rid of. Drop of a couple of those on a motherboard.
Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave KreskowiakI would love to give one of those a try. I think it would work really well with our application. The application is known in our industry as "primary breakdown optimization." A search at google will turn up lots of results, none of which is us because we are a privately held company and we do this for internal consumption only. It is a very mathematics-heavy application that gets its input data from LASER scanners.
-
I would love to give one of those a try. I think it would work really well with our application. The application is known in our industry as "primary breakdown optimization." A search at google will turn up lots of results, none of which is us because we are a privately held company and we do this for internal consumption only. It is a very mathematics-heavy application that gets its input data from LASER scanners.
-
We got a new machine in at work. This one is in a very deep 1U package and it has two processor chips, each with twenty hyperthreaded cores. This means it can handle eighty (that's 80) threads simultaneously. WOW ! Unfortunately, I seem to be seeing a bug with the OMP library. It doesn't seem to handle that many threads correctly. Here's a screenshot from the task manager showing all of those little CPU usage graphs : https://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/17/98/38/10/taskma10.png[^]. I have never seen that many at once.
-
Rick York wrote:
twenty hyperthreaded cores
The first systems I worked on, the word core meant a single bit in memory. You could actually open the memory cabinet and see the cores threaded on a matrix of signal wires.
Ah - the knitting - I don't remember it, but my brother does from when he worked at Ferranti
-
Ah - the knitting - I don't remember it, but my brother does from when he worked at Ferranti
You could learn a lot about the internals of a computer just by looking inside. We also had the flashing lights panel so you could actually watch values being loaded into registers and manipulated. And best of all it could actually do financial calculations in £sd.
-
It's a bit underutilized ... :laugh:
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
It's a bit underutilized ...
Just install Symantec antivirus and it will take care of the rest. :-\
-
Very interesting! For quite a while Windows NT had a limit of 32 CPUs. I guess they extended that not long afterward. Back then, multi-CPU machines were a bit different. There was a company called Sequent who was bought by IBM and made machines with multiple processors on a backplane bus. There was one processor per card slot.
Neat. So how many physical CPUs would that handle, total? I "inherited" a server box a few years back with a second physical processor slot on the motherboard. Some IBM ThinkServer model. The machine had 16GB of RAM, but could handle up to 32 (that's back when that was still considered a lot). The problem is that, strangely enough, if you wanted to make use of that second half of the memory capacity, you had to get a second processor. Which could only be purchased through IBM, and cost more than an entire brand new 32GB system you could put together at the time. That's the only time I was ever in possession of a multi-CPU machine. So I've never really had the opportunity to decide for myself whether a multi-CPU machine was worth the extra money. I'll stick with multi-core, hyperthreading single CPUs I guess.
-
My guess is that they're using it for VMs.
Joe Woodbury wrote:
My guess is that they're using it for VMs.
I was going to point that out. I have dozens of VMs running on consumer hardware, and while it's never starved for CPU time, it sure would be nice if it could dedicate a couple of threads to each VM.
-
Rick York wrote:
Unfortunately, I seem to be seeing a bug with the OMP library. It doesn't seem to handle that many threads correctly.
Are you are actually trying to implement a single process with 80 threads... ? If so... why? Hopefully you are just testing to see what happens. Best Wishes, -David Delaune
Randor wrote:
Are you are actually trying to implement a single process with 80 threads... ? If so... why?
It all depends on what these threads are doing. Here's a real-world example: I have a tiny utility sitting in my system tray that runs many small WMI queries across my LAN to refresh hardware configuration data from remote machines at startup. The payload is very small, so the LAN can take it, but WMI queries are inherently very slow, so it made sense here to dedicate not only one thread per machine, but one thread per query (each machine runs maybe a dozen WMI queries). Multiply that by a dozen machines, and it very quick adds up. What used to be a queued set of queries that took 10+ minutes to complete is now a bunch of threads starting in parallel and all completing within 30 seconds. [Edit] Of course this doesn't imply I need an 80-core machine to run this. :-) Just saying it's not all that unreasonable to spawn this many threads, even if just for a limited time.
-
That's cute. AMD just gave Intel the finger with the announcement of the 2nd gen Threadripper. 32 cores, 64 threads, and 250W of heat to get rid of. Drop of a couple of those on a motherboard.
Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave KreskowiakDave Kreskowiak wrote:
and 250W of heat to get rid of.
I've only ever owned one AMD-based system. I called it the space heater. I see they still haven't dealt with the one reason I was happy to get rid of it. With an expected high of 35C (excluding humidity) over the weekend, I'll happily continue ignoring AMD's latest offerings.
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
and 250W of heat to get rid of.
I've only ever owned one AMD-based system. I called it the space heater. I see they still haven't dealt with the one reason I was happy to get rid of it. With an expected high of 35C (excluding humidity) over the weekend, I'll happily continue ignoring AMD's latest offerings.
I hear that. I've got a 6700K in my machine, running 24x7, and it does a nice job keeping the office warm at 95W(?)
Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak -
OriginalGriff wrote:
It's a bit underutilized ...
Just install Symantec antivirus and it will take care of the rest. :-\
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote:
Just install Symantec antivirus and it will take care of the rest.
Ain't that the truth.
