Re: gthread: how many cores do I have?

On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 07:40 -0700, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > Actually, he got the naming right. Even single-core cpus have cores...
> Except that of course back when multiple-core chips were nonexistent,
> nobody used the term "core". So that isn't really a convincing
> argument.
> > Often, processors is understood to be sockets.
> So? That doesn't mean it's correct. "processor" is the traditional
> term and that is also used by existing APIs in many operating systems.
> One also talks about "multiprocessing", not "multicoring".  "SMP" =
> symmetric multiprocessing for instance. "cores" are just a current
> implementation detail.

The term cores came up to disambiguate the fact that a 'processor', the
chip that sits in the socket, and a 'processor', the magic processing
machine inside used to be 1 to 1 and are now 1 to many. Intel decided to
call the chip the 'processor' and the magic boxes inside 'cores'. That
way, they can continue to be in the business of selling 'processors'.
Since they rule the roost in number of chip sales, their terminology
will stick. Avoiding it will confuse future developers.

> --tml
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]