undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjodrellblank1y ago0 comments

https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Inte...

AMD EPYC 9754 with 128-cores/256-threads, and EPYC 9734 with 112-cores/224-threads. TomsHardware says they "will compete with Intel's 144-core Sierra Forest chips, which mark the debut of Intel's Efficiency cores (E-cores) in its Xeon data center lineup, and Ampre's 192-core AmpereOne processors".

What in 5 years? 10? 20? How long will "1 core should be enough for anyone using Python" stand?

0 comments

d0mine1y ago

Number crunching code in Python (such as using numpy/pytorch) performs the vast vast majority of its calculations in C/Fortran code under the hood where GIL can be released. Single python process can use multiple CPUs.

There is code that may benefit from the free threaded implementation but it is not as often as it might appear and it is not without its own downsides. In general, GIL simplifies multithreaded code.

There were no-GIL Python implementations such as Jython, IronPython. They hadn't replaced CPython, Pypy implementation which use GIL i.e., other concerns dominate.

imachine1980_1y ago

Yes but jython am iron aren't the standard, and I feel the more relevant part is inertia, puppy is design whit lots of concern of compatibility, then being the new standard can totally make difference making both cases not a good comparison.

phkahler1y ago

>> What in 5 years? 10? 20? How long will "1 core should be enough for anyone using Python" stand?

If you're looking for a 32x or 128x performance improvement from python supporting multi-core you should probably rewrite in C, C++, Rust, or Fortran and get that 100x improvement today on a single core. If done properly you can then ALSO get the gain from multiple cores on top of that. Or to put it another way, if performance is critical python is a poor choice.

jodrellblankOP1y ago

"instead of taking advantage of hardware you own, you should do a LOT of work in a language you don't know" - how is that in any way a reasonable suggestion or alternative?

> "Or to put it another way, if performance is critical python is a poor choice."

To put it another way, just because performance isn't critical, doesn't mean that more performance for free is not desirable or beneficial, or that ignoring 127/128ths of available performance is fine.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse