Clint Whaley wrote:
>> Thanks, I had seen it described that way, but being a young and
>> inexperienced thing I had not realised that there was a different,
>> 'original terminology'. (I've heard 'socket' used for something else
>> entirely, so it is all very confusing!)
>
> I find it so, but from the other end of course :).
>
> Originally processor was the term that is now being replaced
> by "core". SMP meant "symmetric multiprocessor", which essentially meant
> non-NUMA. Nowadays, SMP is often used to mean "shared-memory-processor",
> which includes NUMA. When multiple processors started appearing on the
> same die, we added CMP, for chip multiprocessor.
>
> Then, someone had the brainwave to redefine the word processor (because
> the SMP/SMP confusion wasn't adequate, I suppose). I believe Intel calling
> their new chips "Core" was just the logical extension of the devolvement
> of our terminology into complete incomprehensability (I eagerly await their
> next several lines of architectures, which I suppose will be called
> "processor", "architecture" and "chip").
>
> The first time I was aware of this nifty new terminology overload was when
> reviewing a grant proposal, where I noticed that the authors had seemed to
> redefine processor in a weird way, and I was fixing to tell them to please use
> the standard terminology in their grant applications going forward, when a
> friend said that they'd seen that terminology as the new "standard".
>
> Frankly, I hate it. I've spent 15 years talking about doing the fundamental
> unit of computation occuring on the processor, and now I'm supposed to call
> that "core", and change the meaning of processor to mean physical package
> (one physical package goes into one socket on the motherboard, is where
> the 'socket' usage comes from).
>
> Anyway, I realize the boat has already sailed, but I have used "processor"
> too long to able to make the change stick now :)
>
> Cheers,
> Clint
>
> **************************************************************************
> ** R. Clint Whaley, PhD ** Assist Prof, UTSA ** www.cs.utsa.edu/~whaley **
> **************************************************************************
>
Well, at the moment I have no real allegiance to any of the definitions
so I'm quite happy to use whichever terminology is preferred in a
particular context/forum - as long as I know which dialect we are all
meant to be speaking, it isn't too confusing. (That is, if I remember ..)
Thanks for the clarification. I would blame Intel too .. their site is
intensely confusing (eg
http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2006/volume10issue02/art02_cmp_implementation/p02_intro.htm).
Jess
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H_______________________________________________
Math-atlas-devel mailing list
Math-atlas-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/math-atlas-devel