Has anyone been able to find an actual description of what this does? I clicked two layers deep and neither explains the details. It does sound like they’re doing CPU scheduling in the hardware, which is cool and makes some sense, but the descriptions are too vague to explain what the hell this is except “more parallelism goes brrrr” and it’s not clear to me why current GPUs aren’t already that.
Why is this bullshit upvoted?
Already the first sentence, they change from the headline “without recoding” to “with further optimization”.
Then the explanation “a companion chip that optimizes processing tasks in real-time”
This is already done at compiler level and internally in any modern CPU for more than a decade.
It might be possible to some degree for some specific forms of code, like maybe Java. But generally for the CPU this is bullshit, and the headline is decidedly dishonest.
Apparently the percentage of people actually understanding what they are doing in the management part of the industry is now too low to filter out even such bullshit.
The TL;DR for the article is that the headline isn't exactly true. At this moment in time their PPU can potentially double a CPU's performance - the 100x claim comes with the caveat of "further software optimisation".
Tbh, I'm sceptical of the caveat. It feels like me telling someone I can only draw a stickman right now, but I could paint the Mona Lisa with some training.
Of course that could happen, but it's not very likely to - so I'll believe it when I see it.
Having said that they're not wrong about CPU bottlenecks and the slowed rate of CPU performance improvements - so a doubling of performance would be huge in this current market.
Just finished the article, it’s not for free at all. Chips need to be designed to use it. I’m skeptical again. There’s no point IMO. Nobody wants to put the R&D into massively parallel CPUs when they can put that effort into GPUs.
Not every problem is amenable to GPUs. If it has a lot of branching, or needs to fetch back and forth from memory a lot, GPUs don’t help.
Now, does this thing have exactly the same limitations? I’m guessing yes, but it’s all too vague to know for sure. It’s sounds like they’re doing what superscalar CPUs have done for a while. On x86, that starts with the original Pentium from 1993, and Crays going back to the '60s. What are they doing to supercharge this idea?
Does this avoid some of security problems that have popped up with superscalar archs? For example, some kernel code running at ring 0 is running alongside userspace code, and it all gets the same ring 0 level as a result.
I get that we have to impress shareholders, but why can’t they just be honest and say it doubles CPU performance with the chance of even further improvement with software optimization. Doubling performance of the same hardware is still HUGE.
I’m just glad there are companies that are trying to optimize current tech rather than just piling over new hardware every damn year with forced planned obsolescence.
Though the claim is absurd, I think double the performance is NEAT.
This is new hardware piling. What they claim to do requires reworking manufacturing, is not retroactive with current designs, and demands more hardware components. It is basically a hardware thread scheduler. Cool idea, but it won’t save us from planned obsolescence, if anything it is more incentive for more waste.
Others have already laughed at this idea, but on a similar topic:
I know we’ve basically disabled a lot of features that sped up the CPU but introduced security flaws. Is there a way to turn those features back on for an airgapped computer intentionally?
The kernel option is mitigations=off, if you want to try adding it to your Grub command line? From the testing I’ve done, provides no benefits whatsoever - no more frames in games, compilation runs no quicker, battery life on a laptop is no better.
Processors have an execution pipeline, so a single command like mov has some number of actions the CPU takes to execute it. CPU designers already have some magic that allows them to execute these out of order as well as other stuff like pre calculating what they think the next command will probably be.
It’s been a decade since my cpu class so I am butchering that explanation, but I think that is what they are proposing messing with
Its done through multiple algorithms, but the general idea is to schedule calculations as soon as possible, accounting for data hazards to make sure everything is still equivalent to non out of order execution. Individual circuits can execute different things at the same time. Special hardware is needed to make the algorithms work.
There’s also branch prediction which is the same thing kind of except the CPU needs a way to ensure if the prediction was actually correct.
Edit: after a skim and a quick Google, this basically looks like a packaging up of existing modern processor features (sorta AVX/SVE with a load of speculative execution thrown on top)
This is one area where I am vehemently in support of IP protection for all the writers and artists’ works being used. Unfortunately, unlike when it comes to suing individuals who copy something, the wholesale theft of generations of art and writing by AI companies is just being let slide.
I was traveling this week, and saw a couple very obviously AI-generated billboards for the city’s downtown. Something about downtown eats or something. They were, and I’m being extremely nice here, absolutely hideous. I have never, in all my life, seen such ugly billboards. And, while they were different, they were basically the same thing (does that make sense? Them being different, but the same? Not really sure how else to describe it). I was actually looking for a place to eat, and those things deterred me from going downtown. Ended up finding this cute little coffeeshop in some random side road. No food, but holy crap the coffee and crepes were good!
I mean… they do have protein, fruits, and such, so, yes. But I was craving some pasta. I guess a crepe is like a sweet pasta. I did feel the craving vanish… …
Why has Apple not come out with an e-ink display in any of its watches? Or really anything for that matter…? Seems like a no brainer for massively increasing battery life.
Battery life, sure, but functionality, nah. Apple is all about appearances, and a black/white screen running at 1fps isn’t a good appearance.
Honestly even I wouldn’t want an e-ink watch when there are other watches out there that get good battery life and have so much more functionality. My OnePlus Watch 2 gets me a few days. I only charge it when I shower and basically never have to worry about battery even on my frequent weekend camping trips.
techradar.com
Hot