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

More multi-core

To: "Barry Cook" <Barry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx>, <java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: More multi-core
From: "Barry Cook" <Barry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 09:35:57 +0100
Delivery-date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:00:33 +0100
Envelope-to: azz@localhost
List-help: <mailto:sympa@kent.ac.uk?subject=help>
List-id: <occam-com.kent.ac.uk>
List-owner: <mailto:occam-com-request@kent.ac.uk>
List-post: <mailto:occam-com@kent.ac.uk>
List-subscribe: <mailto:sympa@kent.ac.uk?subject=subscribe%20occam-com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa@kent.ac.uk?subject=unsubscribe%20occam-com>
Organization: 4Links Limited
References: <018160DBE8D48349A0CABF4424C3DC21018D295B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <001601c7ada3$497e7fd0$0401a8c0@XP>
Sender: Mailing_List_Robot <sympa@xxxxxxxxxx>

News of another manufacturer entering the multi-core arena - with yet another architecture.

Interestingly, the power consumption argument is getting more prominent [Two cores consume less power than one core at twice the speed]. We heard it at WoTUG in Eindhoven (from Philips) and it is spreading.

http://www.embeddedtechjournal.com/articles_2007/20070626_freescale.htm

Barry.

References:
- Call for participation: CPA 2007
  - From: A.Mcewan
- Parallel Processing Considered Not Harmful
  - From: Barry Cook

Prev by Date: CFC extended: process algebra book
Next by Date: Re: More multi-core
Previous by thread: Parallel Processing Considered Not Harmful
Next by thread: Re: More multi-core
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread