Parallelism necessarily implies concurrency [1] So, "SIMD concurrency" is not in... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		m0th87 on March 27, 2016 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Concurrency in Rust Parallelism necessarily implies concurrency [1] So, "SIMD concurrency" is not incorrect (although SIMD parallelism is more correct :) 1: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/155110

naasking on March 27, 2016 [–]

This not true. CPUs have instruction parallelism, even on a single CPU, but there is no observable concurrency.

SIMD is data-level parallelism, not concurrency.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact