Hello,

More of my philosophy about quantum computers and about CPUs and more..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

For a parallel computer, we need to have one billion different processors. In a quantum computer, a single register can perform a billion computations since a qubit of a register of a quantum computer can be both in two states 1 and 0, this is known as quantum parallelism, so, what characteristics do the problems where quantum computing wins big share? i think one thing that they share is that they tend to be about some global property of a large mathematical system, and connecting quantum computing to "Moore's Law" is sort of foolish -- it's not an all-purpose technique for faster computers, but a limited technique that makes certain types of specialized problems easier, while leaving most of the things we actually use computers for unaffected.

So i think that classical computers are also really useful,
so read my following thoughts so that to understand:

More of my philosophy about Intel Thread Director and about CPUs and more..

I invite you to read the following interesting article about Intel Thread Director:

How Intel Thread Director makes Alder Lake and Windows 11 a match made in heaven

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-intel-thread-director-marries-alder-lake-windows-11/

And more of my philosophy about AVX-512 and about Delphi 11.1 and more
of my thoughts..

I am also using Delphi and Freepascal compilers, and the new Delphi 11.1
compiler provides inline assembler (asm code) support for newer sets of instructions, including AVX2 (ymm) and AVX512 (zmm), you can read about it here:

https://lecturepress.com/tech-journal/dev-tools/delphi-11-is-released/

And the new Delphi 11.1 is here..

Build Native Apps 5x Faster With One Codebase
For Windows, Android, iOS, macOS, and Linux

You can read more about it here:

https://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi

More of my philosophy about AMD Zen 4 and more of my thoughts..

I have just forgotten to talk about AVX-512 support in Zen 4,
and Zen 4 will be out in 2022, so i think that Zen 4 will support AVX-512 and that's a good news, and you can read about it here:

Gigabyte Leaks AMD Zen 4 Details: 5nm, AVX-512, 96 Cores, 12-Channel DDR5

Read more here:

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/325888-gigabyte-leaks-amd-zen-4-details-5nm-avx-512-96-cores-12-channel-ddr5

And read my following previous thoughts:

More of my philosophy about Intel's Alder Lake and about ARM and x86 memory models and more of my thoughts..

I think i am smart, and as you have just noticed, i have just talked about Epyc Zen 4 and Zen 5 and i have just talked about the network topology inside multicore CPUs etc. read them in my thoughts below, and i think that my talking about the network topology of multicore CPUs will still be valid if the new Intel's Alder Lake also becomes a server CPU like a Xeon or Epyc, so here is my thoughts about Intel Alder Lake and about ARM and x86 memory models:

I think that the new Intel's Alder Lake is a winner, and i think that
the performance/efficiency core design of Intel's Alder Lake could find its way into servers, workstations, or embedded IT systems as you can notice it by reading the following article:

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3631072/will-intels-new-desktop-cpu-design-come-to-its-xeon-server-chips.html

More of my philosophy about the ARM and x86 memory models and more
of my thoughts..

I think i am smart, and as you have just noticed i have just said
that x86 is the future(read my below thoughts so that to understand why)
, but i think that ARM architecture has another big defect, since its weak hardware memory model has not balanced correctly between safety or security and performance, so i think that it is a big defect in ARM, read carefully the following article about x86 TSO memory model:

https://research.swtch.com/hwmm

So notice that Intel says that it has well balanced between safety or security and performance by saying the following:

"To address these problems, Owens et al. proposed the x86-TSO model, based on the earlier SPARCv8 TSO model. At the time they claimed that “To the best of our knowledge, x86-TSO is sound, is strong enough to program above, and is broadly in line with the vendors’ intentions.” A few months later Intel and AMD released new manuals broadly adopting this model."

And read more here so that to understand that x86 TSO memory model is very good:

https://jakob.engbloms.se/archives/1435

So i think that ARM has a big defect since it has to provide
with TSO memory model as RISC-V is providing it, since it is
very important for the security or safety concerns

More of my philosophy about the fight between x86 and ARM architectures and more of my thoughts..

I invite you to read the following interesting article about the
fight between x86 or x64 and ARM architectures

ARM Servers on AWS: How to Save up to 30%

Read more here:

https://opsworks.co/arm-servers-on-aws-how-to-save-up-to-30/

So notice that it says the following about ARM CPU architecture compared to x86 CPU architecture:

"Running in a standard setting, Graviton2 performs 20% better, and the power consumption of the Arm core is about half that of other types of cores. Since the cost savings are also about 20%, performance-cost improvements reach 40%."

But i think that the new Intel's Alder Lake is a new winner, since
read the following article so that to notice:

Intel's Alder Lake chip could speed PCs by 30% while saving battery power

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/intels-alder-lake-chip-could-speed-pcs-by-30-while-saving-battery-power/

Also here is the other way that is using Intel so that to fight ARM:

Intel CEO says co-designed x86 chips will fend off Arm threat

Read more here:

https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-x86-vs-arm-gelsinger/

So i think that x86 architecture is the future.

And you can read my following thoughts about 3D stacking in CPUs and about EUV (extreme ultra violet) and about scalability and more in the
following web link:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/USMMhMB9WIE

More of my philosophy about the next Epyc Zen 4 and Epyc Zen 5 CPUs and more of my thoughts..

I have just read the following article about the next AMD EPYC Turin Zen 5 CPUs Rumored To Feature Up To 256 Cores & 192 Core:

https://wccftech.com/amd-epyc-turin-zen-5-cpus-rumored-to-feature-up-to-256-cores-192-core-configurations-max-600w-configurable-tdps/

And notice the data in the above article, so i can say the following
with my calculations:

DDR5 will arrive with a minimum speed of at 4800Mbit/s, which works out to 76.8GB/s of bandwidth in a dual-channel configuration,
and each CCX in Epyc Zen 4 and Zen 4C can be enabled as its own NUMA domain, so in the next AMD EPYC Genoa and AMD EPYC Bergamo CPUs there will be 12 NUMA nodes per socket, with respectively DDR5-5200 and DDR5-5600 support on those CPUs, so the AMD EPYC Genoa can support a memory bandwidth of 5.2 GT/s x 8 bytes per channel x 12 channels for one socket, and that equals 499.2 GB per second or 998.4 GB per second for two sockets, and the AMD EPYC Bergamo can support a memory bandwidth of 5.6 GT/s x 8 bytes per channel x 12 channels for one socket, that equals 537.6 GB per second or 1075.2 GB per second for two sockets, so as you notice that the memory bandwidth will become powerful on those kind of CPUs of Zen 4 and Zen 5, and the IPC gain from Zen 3 to Zen 4 is at around 20% and 40% Overall Performance Boost of Zen 4 over Zen 3, and Zen 5 will have 20-40% IPC increase over Zen 4, and for the network topology in those next multicores CPUs, you can read my following thoughts about it:

More of my philosophy about the knee of an M/M/n queue and more..

Here is the mathematical equation of the knee of an M/M/n queue in
queuing theory in operational research:

1/(n+1)^1/n

n is the number of servers.

So then an M/M/1 has a knee of 50% of the utilization, and the one of
an M/M/2 is 0,578.

More of my philosophy about the network topology in multicores CPUs..

I invite you to look at the following video:

Ring or Mesh, or other? AMD's Future on CPU Connectivity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teWvMXK99I&t=904s

And i invite you to read the following article:

Does an AMD Chiplet Have a Core Count Limit?

Read more here:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16930/does-an-amd-chiplet-have-a-core-count-limit

I think i am smart and i say that the above video and the above article
are not so smart, so i will talk about a very important thing, and it is
the following, read the following:

Performance Scalability of a Multi-core Web Server

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221046211_Performance_scalability_of_a_multi-core_web_server

So notice carefully that it is saying the following:

"..we determined that performance scaling was limited by the capacity of
the address bus, which became saturated on all eight cores. If this key
obstacle is addressed, commercial web server and systems software are
well-positioned to scale to a large number of cores."

So as you notice they were using an Intel Xeon of 8 cores, and the
application was scalable to 8x but the hardware was not scalable to 8x,
since it was scalable only to 4.8x, and this was caused by the bus
saturation, since the Address bus saturation causes poor scaling, and
the Address Bus carries requests and responses for data, called snoops,
and more caches mean more sources and more destinations for snoops that
is causing the poor scaling, so as you notice that a network topology of
a Ring bus or a bus was not sufficient so that to scale to 8x on an
Intel Xeon with 8 cores, so i think that the new architectures like Epyc
CPU and Threadripper CPU can use a faster bus or/and a different network
topology that permits to both ensure a full scalability locally in the
same node and globally between the nodes, so then we can notice that a
sophisticated mesh network topology not only permits to reduce the
number of hops inside the CPU for good latency, but it is also good for
reliability by using its sophisticated redundancy and it is faster than
previous topologies like the ring bus or the bus since
for example the search on address bus becomes parallelized, and it looks
like the internet network that uses mesh topology using routers, so it
parallelizes, and i also think that using a more sophisticated topology
like a mesh network topology is related to queuing theory since we can
notice that in operational research the mathematics says that we can
make the queue like M/M/1 more efficient by making the server more
powerful, but we can notice that the knee of a M/M/1 queue is around 50%
, so we can notice that by using a mesh topology like internet or
inside a CPU, you can by parallelizing more you can in operational
research both enhance the knee of the queue and the speed of executing
the transactions and it is like using many servers in queuing theory and
it permits to scale better inside a CPU or in internet.