registers question
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
The thing to remember is the CPU can only do one thing at once...
Erm...not quite. Each core is an "independent" processor which is part of the CPU - and two or more cores can be doing different things at the same time.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
I think the term CPU is somewhat antiquated, from the days when you did have a central processing unit. Now we have lots of them and they are known as cores. In my mind CPU = Core, although I can see how it might not mean that to other people.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
The voting toy was taken away from the children until they learn how to behave like grownups :D
So...it won't be coming back then? :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
The voting toy was taken away from the children until they learn how to behave like grownups :D
There are no grown ups, just us wabbits! ;P
-
The voting toy was taken away from the children until they learn how to behave like grownups :D
Ah. Makes sense actually.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Suppose we run two programs on a single-core processor First sets the EIP pointer to 2 (example)and the second one sets it to 1 How does the first program know it will continue from adress 2 and not 1 ? Thank you very much (random fact: Pink Floyd's wish you were here was written not for someone who died ,but for an ex member who went insane)
EbolaHost wrote:
How does the first program know it will continue from adress 2 and not 1 ?
It doesn't until the quantum state in collapsed by an observer. Marc
-
Random random fact: While recording Wish You Were Here, the same former member wandered into the recording and none of the band recognised him.
-
EbolaHost wrote:
(random fact: Pink Floyd's wish you were here was written not for someone who died ,but for an ex member who went insane)
Syd Barrett[^] was the driving force and one of the original members of Pink Floyd. He released 2 solo albums; The Mapcap Laughs and Barrett but they didn't go very well. I have The Mapcap Laughs and it is a very strange album.
Along with Antimatter and Dark Matter they've discovered the existence of Doesn't Matter which appears to have no effect on the universe whatsoever! Rich Tennant 5th Wave
-
FALSE One of them did I think it was Waters He asked him what does he think of the album and he replied...well i dont exactly remember but it was something negative !
Sorry to correct you - albeit slightly - but I was referring to the initial entry of Barrett. In a later interview, Richard Wright said: "One thing that really stands out in my mind, that I’ll never forget; I was going in to the the Shine On sessions. I went in the studio and I saw this guy sitting at the back of the studio, he was only as far away as you are from me. And I didn’t recognise him. I said, ‘Who’s that guy behind you?’ ‘That’s Syd.’ And I just cracked up, I couldn’t believe it… he had shaven all his hair off… I mean, his eyebrows, everything… he was jumping up and down brushing his teeth, it was awful. And, uh, I was in, I mean Roger was in tears, I think I was; we were both in tears. It was very shocking… seven years of no contact and then to walk in while we’re actually doing that particular track. I don’t know – coincidence, karma, fate, who knows? But it was very, very, very powerful.” Waters described the meeting as: “I had no idea who he was for a very long time.”
-
I think the term CPU is somewhat antiquated, from the days when you did have a central processing unit. Now we have lots of them and they are known as cores. In my mind CPU = Core, although I can see how it might not mean that to other people.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
Rob Philpott wrote:
I think the term CPU is somewhat antiquated, from the days when you did have a central processing unit. Now we have lots of them and they are known as cores.
In my observation, your usage of "core" isn't quite right. My understanding is that a machine can have multiple CPUs and a CPU can have multiple cores. What distinguishes a core from a CPU is use of common cache, and ability to synchronize a subset of memory operations. A room full of compute servers is not a single CPU. In 2007, I purchased a machine that contained 2 dual core CPUs. To be fair, this is still vague and the terminology needs some polishing.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that... - Harvey
-
Rob Philpott wrote:
I think the term CPU is somewhat antiquated, from the days when you did have a central processing unit. Now we have lots of them and they are known as cores.
In my observation, your usage of "core" isn't quite right. My understanding is that a machine can have multiple CPUs and a CPU can have multiple cores. What distinguishes a core from a CPU is use of common cache, and ability to synchronize a subset of memory operations. A room full of compute servers is not a single CPU. In 2007, I purchased a machine that contained 2 dual core CPUs. To be fair, this is still vague and the terminology needs some polishing.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that... - Harvey
I wouldn't argue with that, but I think it hangs on interpretation. I tend not to use the term CPU any more, rather just 'processor'. 2 Processors with 4 cores each. For me, having two CPUs doesn't sound right as they can't both be central (arguably...) and I think the term belongs in the era where there was just one 'central' processor. I think the problem arises because people use them differently. A CPU could be a collection of processors (chips), a single processor (chip) or a core (sub-chip). What's the CPU in one of those mega-computers with thousands of cores, I wonder...
Regards, Rob Philpott.
