My motto in this regard is &#x27;simplify the hardware as much as possible and do your partitioning and structures and abstractions in the software&#x27;.<p>So single address space or no? I ask &#x27;which way gives the smaller chip footprint&#x27;?<p>I think we spend (waste?) too much time trying to do things in hardware when we could offer an extremely simple core to the s&#x2F;w layer. That makes h&#x2F;w designer&#x27;s job easy and leaves a ton of footprint where you can put more cores.<p>Make the core RRISC (reduced-reduced-instruction-set-computer) and offer it in 64-core or 256-core versions and let the programmers have fun with it.<p>Looking at the brainiac-vs-speed-demon debate (from this [1]), I&#x27;m squarely in the speed-demon camp.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lighterra.com&#x2F;papers&#x2F;modernmicroprocessors&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lighterra.com&#x2F;papers&#x2F;modernmicroprocessors&#x2F;</a>