Posted by
Hemos
on from the conjecture-or-convinced dept.
vmircea writes "If you think clock speed is the most important measure of a processor, IBM's Bernie Meyerson wants you to reconsider. Meyerson, who heads research and development efforts for Big Blue's semiconductor group, says processor chip speed is old news. Go to ZDNet for the interview."
Speed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The end result that people care about. When a system is purchased,
and people are looking at transaction processing capabilities, that is an end
result. They are not looking at whether the clock frequency of the
microprocessor is 8 percent higher.
Isn't that how non-idiots have been looking at it, all along?
I don't think this is really a new attitude.
Re:Speed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
agreed.
Except taht most people stop their research into what chip they want when they see a RBFN with the letters "MHz" or "GHz" printed next to it. Nevermind how other factors influnence true optimality of a chip. I personally would much rather see a standard numerical rating be developed (FLOPS may work), except that some (coughIntelCough) wont use taht in marketing materials because it shows inefficiency. (Much like how Hummers dont print their gas mileage on showroom display materials)
FLOPS won't work; it ignores workloads that use integer math. It also ignores workloads that specialize in vector math. And workloads that depend a great deal on automated decision-making. And random-number generation.
The problem is that no matter what metric you use, it won't fit all cases. Different workloads have different requirements. Personally, I'd like to see programmable hardware...Essentially an FPGA section on CPUs. Programs would provide the OS's scheduler with a circuit layout, and the scheduler would have the layout programmed in when needed.
Each program doesn't necessarily have to have access to the whole grid array, either. The scheduler could divide the array into sections. One section would be for speeding up scheduler operations. The rest would be available to have programs loaded in. You wouldn't even need to erase one program's hardware when another program had something it wanted to implement. With the hardware divided, you could load the new program's code into an empty slot, and leave the old code available for the old program's next timeslice. (To prevent having to reprogram the FPGA section every time the program's turn came about.)
No, it's the speed holes that make it go faster. You know, those tiny little holes in the socket -- the more holes, the faster the processor.
And I'll let you in on a little secret -- those pins that go in the holes are actually there to slow the CPU down. No need to buy a new processor -- just clip off a couple of the pins on your current PC and it'll go much faster.
And I'll let you in on a little secret -- those pins that go in the holes are actually there to slow the CPU down. No need to buy a new processor -- just clip off a couple of the pins on your current PC and it'll go much faster.
I tried, but the magic smoke came out of the CPUand it doesn't work anymore (for those who knows, the magic smoke is what makes the chip work; if it escapes, the chip dies).
I agree with Bernie
by
L.+VeGas
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Clock speed is good, but what I look for in a processor is that ephemeral processor attitude. Can I show it off to friends? Will my mother thinkk it's cute, or is it a little... dangerous? I want a processor that says something about me. That I'm a rebel that won't take no for an answer. That I'm cool without trying. If a processor can't do that for me, well I'm just not interested.
Re:I agree with Bernie
by
foidulus
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Clock speed is good, but what I look for in a processor is that ephemeral processor attitude. Can I show it off to friends? Will my mother thinkk it's cute, or is it a little... dangerous? I want a processor that says something about me. That I'm a rebel that won't take no for an answer. That I'm cool without trying. If a processor can't do that for me, well I'm just not interested.
I have a suggestion, get a personlized tattoo on your ARM! *Rim shot
I apologize.
What else besides games?
by
MacFury
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What other applications besides games really tax the CPU right now?
I do a fair amount of video editing and image manipulation, even still my two year old computer works fast enough for me...
Does the average Joe need the computing power they are given?
I dabble in image manipulation, but mainly i do music production on my computer. Mine's about 2 years old, too...Most of the time, it does great. However, once i get about 7-8 tracks in, depending on the kind of output, plus effects like reverb and compression, my CPU says, "Aw, HELL no!" and freezes my machine. Happened just yesterday..makes me wonder sometimes if 2 proc's might help.
> What other applications besides games really tax the CPU right now?
as a developer i want compilation to be a quick as possible.
also i make heavy use of vmware, which needs as much grunt as it can get.
-- nostrils
Sensationlist statement
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
He doesn't really appear to offer any substantial concepts for performance improvements. Shrinking the die and upping the clock speed are the most common performance improvements because they are the most effective. Changes to the chips structure or internal coding only result in a one time 10-20% performance boost. And concepts like programmable gateways still have to follow the laws of physics.
Sure, you may be able to optimize a few very common pathways. But you simply can't optimize all of them. Thus a "perfect" algorithm for pathway adaption would again net you one of those 10-20% increases on a general processor. A dedicated machine (e.g. One attempting to calculate PI to infinity) could of course see several times the performance, but then you have to weigh an expensive programmable chip against a cheap custom chip.
Re:Sensationlist statement
by
DigitalDreg
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You missed the point.
He is saying that people have run out of the easy optimizations. That it is more important now to concentrate on the performance of the whole package, not just the core.
To that end people providing their own macro designs will allow Power to extend in ways IBM isn't planning on. Need better I/O handling? Somebody might sell it to you. Need a cache controller that handles a high number of outstanding cache requests because your software isn't cache friendly? Somebody might have that too. Need to find these people with these designs? They'll all be talking to each other as part of PowerPC consortium...
This opens up avenues for more creative uses that compliement the basic core, and helps bring down design time. Before you might have not even contemplated a custom chip based on a PowerPC design. In a few years, you might be able to glue a few building blocks together to get it.
Re:Sensationlist statement
by
Arker
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think you grok this well.
Clock speed has never been the main factor in the performance of your computer - it's just been a number that works well for marketing. Your typical modern cpu is idle most of the time anyway. When you increase the clock speed, it does increase performance, but not linearly - doubling the clock speed on your chip might only give you a 10% boost or so in terms of real world performance.
I remember back when the Pentium first came out, having two systems with P60s to compare, the only difference between them being that one had 4 times the cache memory onboard and, I believe, a better cache-logic implementation on board. The system with the superior motherboard was in a whole higher class, performance wise, in regards to every task we threw at it, although the effect was much more pronounced on some tasks than others, it was striking in every case.
As CPU power has been growing far faster than IO capabilities, I would expect the same sort of testing with new systems today would show even more dramatic effects.
Better IO handling is very important for many different applications. Just look at the difference between running an application that will fit in cache against one that requires constant work with your main RAM bank. It's huge. So is the difference between a program that will fit in main RAM and one that requires page swapping with VM. Massive difference. Increasing clock speed shaves a microsecond off here or there, but it does nothing about all the wasted cycles while the CPU waits on IO.
CPU speed over the past 20 years has increased incredibly, but IO capabilities in the PC haven't improved at anything like the same rate. Making CPUs smarter (not necessarily faster, but more efficient at using the speed they already have,) using bigger better designed caches and improving IO systems are likely to be much more efficient ways of increasing real world performance than cranking up the clock speed.
-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
My Asynchronous Processor
by
Throtex
·
· Score: 5, Funny
... doesn't even have a clock, you insensitive clod!
Same old
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Sounds like the same thing AMD has been trying to convince people of for the past 5 years, while Intel has been lengthening their processor pipelines to ramp up clockspeed while effectively lowering instructions per clock. Unfortunately no one bought it when AMD was saying it, so they had to come out with their PR naming system. Let's hope that at least IBM and their significantly bigger clout can change the picture. It seems like Intel's getting on board too, it seems there are rumblings of them moving their notebook M processors to the desktop as things have gone to hell when transitioning to 90nm fabrication. (In terms of power dissipation)
thanks for the link
by
mattkime
·
· Score: 4, Funny
to IBM's website.
I hate it when articles are posted about small, obscure companies and then I can't find their website.
-- Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
It's all marketing
by
grunt107
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The processor speed for marketers is comparable to the engine size wars in the 60s/70s. If I say I have a 402 (6.6L) in my Chevelle and Bob next door has a (snicker) 350 (5.7L) in his Nova, my car gets the approving nods, but may not be faster since the Nova is lighter. Now compare said Chevelle w/today's Z06 'vette. Little 'wimpy' vette has just a 5.7L, but kicks the snot outta the Chevelle in performance.
IBM, and other marketing 'geniuses', need to name their products to entice the 'mine is bigger' crowd. Right now, in the consumer computer realm, GHz talks. Most non-IT people I know will spout the "My PC is 4GHz - what's yours?" mantra when a 2.8 Opteron w/SCSI320 will kick its butt. The enlightened will know, but 'tis the general ignorant masses that have the buying power.
Re:It's all marketing
by
pknoll
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
To extend your car analogy a bit further -
Both a Kenworth over-the-road tractor and a Formula 1 car have about 1000 horsepower. But one will accelerate a LOT faster than the other. And one can tow 20 tons of stuff behind it.
Even IF MHz were directly comparable, you still couldn't judge the speed of a computer without considering what that computer was built to do.
Re:Poeple still want more ghz...
by
Jameth
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"It makes poeple think that prosesor runs faster when it realy doesn't."
Actually, it makes people think the processor runs faster when it really *does*. Which is why I like their numbering scheme: it compensates for consumer ignorance.
Make the chips run cooler
by
Hoonis
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Corporate datacenters are now filling up with half-full racks because cooling & power requirements are through the roof. You end up being unable to increase compute resources because you have to put in fewer of the faster systems, gaining you nothing.
So hey, if you're listening harware vendors, see if you can't simply make the dang things run cooler on less power before you speed them up!
GHz is the wrong metric
by
kennykb
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Most applications nowadays founder on memory
hierarchy performance (L1/L2 cache, main store,
backing store). Cache misses are a usual killer,
and fetch prediction doesn't work very well at
all yet.
Even on the base CPU, the most important metric,
I find, is "MIPS per watt". That's what determines
how much horsepower you can get off a given amount
of cooling, which is the real limiting factor for
CPU speed.
*Everyone* knows?
by
funkdid
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I think to the/. crowd this is certainly old news. Ever try to explain this to grandma? Or your girlfriend's little brother? *Most* people after my speach of how processors work say "Yeah but arent AMD chips slow? Like a Pentium is 3Ghz, AMDs are cheap (meaning cheaply made) right?"
So I "dumb" my speach down a bit and give it again. The masses don't want to know how processors work, they don't want to know about architecture, they want an even base line to measure performance. Most people think the Comp Usa rep is ripping them off and they are trying to feel good about their purchase, being an un-educated consumer.
By buying the high clock speed they can compare it to their neighboors and in their heads they have a Super-Fast PC.
I'd like to note that most people I talk to look at AMD like most people look at a Yugo. (remember those cars?) In spite of my advice that an AMD is like a new Honda for $2,000.
Clock speed has never been the definitive CPU performance measurement. As everyone knows it is the Bogo MIP.
-- --
Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
Re:Seems IBM is embracing open standards
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The x86 instruction set is obviously not the future for desktop systems, at least not in the form of x86. In the near term it looks like that future is x86-64, which is not really the same as the x86 instruction set (which itself has changed over time) though it is dramatically similar of course.
x86 processors have managed to bump the clock and improve the architecture. You have to do both to be successful. Having higher clock rates IS a benefit even if you do nothing else, so long as the rest of the system can keep up. IMO you can give most of the credit for the improvement of x86 to AMD, which really pushed its limits admirably. They also didn't manage to push clock rates as far (at least, not as soon) so they had to add more functional units and tie them all in, which is exactly what you're talking about, an alternative to increasing cycles per second.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Uh, can you spell AMD
by
Omega1045
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Didn't AMD take this approach some years back? They have to name their processors to sounds like pentium clock speed ratings, but they have been preaching the idea that clock-speed is not the sole issue for years. I know IBM is technical leader, but it just smells like IBM, like Intel, are jumping on the AMD bandwagon, but they aren't calling it the AMD bandwagon.
--
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Re:Seems IBM is embracing open standards
by
SoopahMan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I disagree - you're forgetting AMD. Intel has been pushing clock speed for a long time, and many consumers are still fooled by this engineered-for-marketing strategy.
But AMD very-much uses the x86 architecture, and has long emphasized things other than clock speed. They've already put into action several of the things IBM's Bernie Meyerson seems to think he brilliantly came up with:
Efficiency: Athlons just plain get more performance per clock than an Intel. There are a lot of factors that contribute to this including the length of the pipeline, but the design just gets more done with each tick. That's less complexity and less...
Power usage: Athlons have 10-12 pipeline stages compared to the Pentium 4's 30. Between that increased efficiency, and less need for a large cache (big pipeline means frequent cache hits), it can use far less power than a P4 for the same performance - and consequently generate much less heat.
Interacting with software: Also not new - more recent desktop AMD chips internally clock themselves up and down depending on whether you're idling or running an app. Laptop chips have done this for years. That means the invalid assumption PC novices make that leaving a PC on while they eat lunch will not use much power becomes valid. For the power user, the PC churns out less heat overall since it only pumps heat under peak usage.
There are things the guy lists that are just freakin' out there:
We are even building in the capability for the chip to physically morph, if required. For instance, you spot an excessive number of fails occurring in the memory--we have techniques in software that recognize those errors. But if it turns out that for whatever reason, one segment of the chip drives an extreme amount of correction, one can easily envision the system autonomically issuing a command to remove that segment.
Uh, dude, this isn't an episode of Transformers, it's a CPU. AMD and Intel already resolved this issue by building very strong chips that don't fail. Even if physically modifying the chip to lop off the bad parts is possible, I can only see it leading to a reduction in quality of chips produced, with manufacturers knowing that worst case, if it fails, it'll just lop itself to pieces.
The most direct processor measurement
by
Profane+MuthaFucka
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The old MHz measurement was nice for a time, but it just wasn't measuring what computer performance geeks find important. Just like car performance enthusiasts like to talk about the horsepower ratings of their engines, what is really important is a measurement of how the system really performs. That's why a quarter-mile timing can be more informative about a car's performance than just looking at the car's horsepower and torque rating.
So, the new processor measurement that gets right to the heart of what's important for a CPU performance geek is going to be henceforth the PU. The PU stands for 'penis unit' and it indicates to their fellow cpu performance geeks how big their dick is relative to everyone else's.
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Power is not for PC
by
rve
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The POWER architecture isnt really for the average Joe's computer, it is for servers. In servers, many tasks are done by coprocessors and independant subsystems without taxing the CPU. The extra CPU performance is now suddenly needed because IBM keeps encouraging ISV'S to write for Websphere, in Java, so you now need 10 times more memory and CPU performance than you previously did to perform the same task. In servers, the worst bottleneck at the moment are afaik still the moving parts in the disks and tapes.
The PPC is a cousin of the embedded version of the chip, where the performance per watt power usage is relevant. It is hugely successful.
Sales of Apples with desktop POWER chips aren't really significant. Although IBM aren't ready to admit it yet, the battle for the desktop is long over. No amount of performance advantage is going to outweigh the main advantage of the x86 architecture there: backward compatibility, preserving the value of past investments in software for the customer. IBM should know this, as they still make their zSeries mainframes compatible with the 40+ year old 360 architecture for the same reason.
In the PC, unlike most servers, most everything goes through the CPU, which is why for the average Joe raw CPU performance _does_ matter.
Re:Power is not for PC
by
cbiffle
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The extra CPU performance is now suddenly needed because IBM keeps encouraging ISV'S to write for Websphere, in Java, so you now need 10 times more memory and CPU performance than you previously did to perform the same task.
Your post is, for the most part, dead-on and well-put, but I can tell you're not an enterprise Java developer.
Our transaction processing systems were recently moved to Java from C (Solaris on a Sunfire 6800, 8-way SPARC).
Yes, they require more memory. This doesn't really concern us because we spend far less time tracking down dangling pointers and memory leaks now. The increase in memory seems to be about 4x-6x for our system, which still brings it in under a gig.
No, they do not require more CPU. Several parts of our application actually run faster than the C version. I credit the Hotspot on-the-fly optimization crap for this to some degree, but I'm honestly not sure what the deal is. (And I'm our profiling guy. Ain't that sad?:-)
But more importantly, as you mentioned, on big iron the I/O throughput tends to be the bottleneck anyway. Our transaction-processing systems tend to sit happily with significant idle percentages while positively slamming the disks and databases.
We're running inside Sun's Solaris JVM in a hacked-up proprietary version of EJB, using Tomcat for the frontend. I can't imagine that Websphere has much higher overhead, though I could certainly be wrong.
If you can beat 'em, change the rules of the game.
by
stienman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
IBM is attempting to change the rules of performance measurement. They are doing this by educating their customers. Inherently, people want a single performance metric that says X is better than Y because this perfromance metric says so.
IBM would prefer customers to come to them and ask IBM, "Which processor is better?" rather than rely on an external, easily verifiable, though not accurate, single number indicator.
The truth, as we all know, is that there is no single metric since each processor has strengths and weaknesses and various applications rely on these strengths differently.
They are also opening their processors to the end users a little more, almost as a jab at Intel. Intel has microcode, but you'll never see it or get to modify it. But the very presence of microcode in almost every modern general purpose CPU means that performance can be enhanced and tailored for each application with very little processor change.
So IBM is letting people get closer with the processor to enhance performance with very little risk or effort.
The kicker is that it's not simple, so only a few large manufacturers and some dedicated homebrewers will really have anything to show for it.
Thus it's a marketting ploy intended to raise questions about current performance metrics in the minds of indecisive consumers.
But then, when has the CPU war ever been about anything but marketting?
-Adam
Re-programmable
by
The+Conductor
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There is a trade-off between speed, reliability, cost, and re-programmability.
SRAM types
Are re-programmable but require a rather slow serial load at boot-up. Reliability in embedded systems leaves something to be deisired since any brownout-induced glitch can create errors that are even worse (harder to recover from) than software glitches because wired logic doesn't have anything equivalent to code checksums or interrupt vectors. Well-paid FPGA designers are versed in the arcane art of self-verifying logic.
EEPROM types
Come alive at boot up and are much more resistant to glitches. Their performance, however, is slow. And you have limited (100,000 maybe) rewrite cycles.
Anti-fuse types
are made by Actel. They have the highest performance and best density. They come alive at boot up and are dead-nuts reliable under the worst of conditions; for example, properly qualified, they can survive the cosmic radiation in spacecraft that would leave other types toasted. The big drawback: the anti-fuse process, which works by melting diodes into short-circuits, is not eraseable.
Desktop systems (say, an add-on FPGA card) would be best served by SRAM types, since you already have a processor that requires gluttinous gobs of puritanically clean DC power. Basement hardware hackers would be better served by EEPROM or anitfuse types (depending on performance requirements), since they don't require super-expensive exotic design software.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, look. A story on why clock speed doesn't matter. Perhaps this is a cover-up as to why the new G5s aren't as fast as Apple promised.
SHAME on you, IBM, for causing Steve Jobs' promises not to come true.
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
personally i like to measure the speed on how many eggs i can cook on it per minute.
my celeron can probably only do 2 or 3, i'm sure the P4 can top that though.
I mean, everybody knows its the cold cathode lights, plexiglass windows, and stickers that make it go faster.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Clock speed is good, but what I look for in a processor is that ephemeral processor attitude. Can I show it off to friends? Will my mother thinkk it's cute, or is it a little ... dangerous? I want a processor that says something about me. That I'm a rebel that won't take no for an answer. That I'm cool without trying. If a processor can't do that for me, well I'm just not interested.
Best Windows Freeware
I do a fair amount of video editing and image manipulation, even still my two year old computer works fast enough for me...
Does the average Joe need the computing power they are given?
He doesn't really appear to offer any substantial concepts for performance improvements. Shrinking the die and upping the clock speed are the most common performance improvements because they are the most effective. Changes to the chips structure or internal coding only result in a one time 10-20% performance boost. And concepts like programmable gateways still have to follow the laws of physics.
Sure, you may be able to optimize a few very common pathways. But you simply can't optimize all of them. Thus a "perfect" algorithm for pathway adaption would again net you one of those 10-20% increases on a general processor. A dedicated machine (e.g. One attempting to calculate PI to infinity) could of course see several times the performance, but then you have to weigh an expensive programmable chip against a cheap custom chip.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
... doesn't even have a clock, you insensitive clod!
Sounds like the same thing AMD has been trying to convince people of for the past 5 years, while Intel has been lengthening their processor pipelines to ramp up clockspeed while effectively lowering instructions per clock. Unfortunately no one bought it when AMD was saying it, so they had to come out with their PR naming system. Let's hope that at least IBM and their significantly bigger clout can change the picture. It seems like Intel's getting on board too, it seems there are rumblings of them moving their notebook M processors to the desktop as things have gone to hell when transitioning to 90nm fabrication. (In terms of power dissipation)
to IBM's website.
I hate it when articles are posted about small, obscure companies and then I can't find their website.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
The processor speed for marketers is comparable to the engine size wars in the 60s/70s. If I say I have a 402 (6.6L) in my Chevelle and Bob next door has a (snicker) 350 (5.7L) in his Nova, my car gets the approving nods, but may not be faster since the Nova is lighter. Now compare said Chevelle w/today's Z06 'vette. Little 'wimpy' vette has just a 5.7L, but kicks the snot outta the Chevelle in performance. IBM, and other marketing 'geniuses', need to name their products to entice the 'mine is bigger' crowd. Right now, in the consumer computer realm, GHz talks. Most non-IT people I know will spout the "My PC is 4GHz - what's yours?" mantra when a 2.8 Opteron w/SCSI320 will kick its butt. The enlightened will know, but 'tis the general ignorant masses that have the buying power.
"It makes poeple think that prosesor runs faster when it realy doesn't."
Actually, it makes people think the processor runs faster when it really *does*. Which is why I like their numbering scheme: it compensates for consumer ignorance.
Corporate datacenters are now filling up with half-full racks because cooling & power requirements are through the roof. You end up being unable to increase compute resources because you have to put in fewer of the faster systems, gaining you nothing.
So hey, if you're listening harware vendors, see if you can't simply make the dang things run cooler on less power before you speed them up!
Even on the base CPU, the most important metric, I find, is "MIPS per watt". That's what determines how much horsepower you can get off a given amount of cooling, which is the real limiting factor for CPU speed.
So I "dumb" my speach down a bit and give it again. The masses don't want to know how processors work, they don't want to know about architecture, they want an even base line to measure performance. Most people think the Comp Usa rep is ripping them off and they are trying to feel good about their purchase, being an un-educated consumer.
By buying the high clock speed they can compare it to their neighboors and in their heads they have a Super-Fast PC.
I'd like to note that most people I talk to look at AMD like most people look at a Yugo. (remember those cars?) In spite of my advice that an AMD is like a new Honda for $2,000.
That's my 2 cents
I boycott signatures
Clock speed has never been the definitive CPU performance measurement. As everyone knows it is the Bogo MIP.
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
x86 processors have managed to bump the clock and improve the architecture. You have to do both to be successful. Having higher clock rates IS a benefit even if you do nothing else, so long as the rest of the system can keep up. IMO you can give most of the credit for the improvement of x86 to AMD, which really pushed its limits admirably. They also didn't manage to push clock rates as far (at least, not as soon) so they had to add more functional units and tie them all in, which is exactly what you're talking about, an alternative to increasing cycles per second.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Didn't AMD take this approach some years back? They have to name their processors to sounds like pentium clock speed ratings, but they have been preaching the idea that clock-speed is not the sole issue for years. I know IBM is technical leader, but it just smells like IBM, like Intel, are jumping on the AMD bandwagon, but they aren't calling it the AMD bandwagon.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
But AMD very-much uses the x86 architecture, and has long emphasized things other than clock speed. They've already put into action several of the things IBM's Bernie Meyerson seems to think he brilliantly came up with:
- Efficiency: Athlons just plain get more performance per clock than an Intel. There are a lot of factors that contribute to this including the length of the pipeline, but the design just gets more done with each tick. That's less complexity and less...
- Power usage: Athlons have 10-12 pipeline stages compared to the Pentium 4's 30. Between that increased efficiency, and less need for a large cache (big pipeline means frequent cache hits), it can use far less power than a P4 for the same performance - and consequently generate much less heat.
- Interacting with software: Also not new - more recent desktop AMD chips internally clock themselves up and down depending on whether you're idling or running an app. Laptop chips have done this for years. That means the invalid assumption PC novices make that leaving a PC on while they eat lunch will not use much power becomes valid. For the power user, the PC churns out less heat overall since it only pumps heat under peak usage.
There are things the guy lists that are just freakin' out there:Uh, dude, this isn't an episode of Transformers, it's a CPU. AMD and Intel already resolved this issue by building very strong chips that don't fail. Even if physically modifying the chip to lop off the bad parts is possible, I can only see it leading to a reduction in quality of chips produced, with manufacturers knowing that worst case, if it fails, it'll just lop itself to pieces.
The old MHz measurement was nice for a time, but it just wasn't measuring what computer performance geeks find important. Just like car performance enthusiasts like to talk about the horsepower ratings of their engines, what is really important is a measurement of how the system really performs. That's why a quarter-mile timing can be more informative about a car's performance than just looking at the car's horsepower and torque rating.
So, the new processor measurement that gets right to the heart of what's important for a CPU performance geek is going to be henceforth the PU. The PU stands for 'penis unit' and it indicates to their fellow cpu performance geeks how big their dick is relative to everyone else's.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The POWER architecture isnt really for the average Joe's computer, it is for servers. In servers, many tasks are done by coprocessors and independant subsystems without taxing the CPU. The extra CPU performance is now suddenly needed because IBM keeps encouraging ISV'S to write for Websphere, in Java, so you now need 10 times more memory and CPU performance than you previously did to perform the same task. In servers, the worst bottleneck at the moment are afaik still the moving parts in the disks and tapes.
The PPC is a cousin of the embedded version of the chip, where the performance per watt power usage is relevant. It is hugely successful.
Sales of Apples with desktop POWER chips aren't really significant. Although IBM aren't ready to admit it yet, the battle for the desktop is long over. No amount of performance advantage is going to outweigh the main advantage of the x86 architecture there: backward compatibility, preserving the value of past investments in software for the customer. IBM should know this, as they still make their zSeries mainframes compatible with the 40+ year old 360 architecture for the same reason.
In the PC, unlike most servers, most everything goes through the CPU, which is why for the average Joe raw CPU performance _does_ matter.
IBM is attempting to change the rules of performance measurement. They are doing this by educating their customers. Inherently, people want a single performance metric that says X is better than Y because this perfromance metric says so.
IBM would prefer customers to come to them and ask IBM, "Which processor is better?" rather than rely on an external, easily verifiable, though not accurate, single number indicator.
The truth, as we all know, is that there is no single metric since each processor has strengths and weaknesses and various applications rely on these strengths differently.
They are also opening their processors to the end users a little more, almost as a jab at Intel. Intel has microcode, but you'll never see it or get to modify it. But the very presence of microcode in almost every modern general purpose CPU means that performance can be enhanced and tailored for each application with very little processor change.
So IBM is letting people get closer with the processor to enhance performance with very little risk or effort.
The kicker is that it's not simple, so only a few large manufacturers and some dedicated homebrewers will really have anything to show for it.
Thus it's a marketting ploy intended to raise questions about current performance metrics in the minds of indecisive consumers.
But then, when has the CPU war ever been about anything but marketting?
-Adam
There is a trade-off between speed, reliability, cost, and re-programmability.
SRAM types
Are re-programmable but require a rather slow serial load at boot-up. Reliability in embedded systems leaves something to be deisired since any brownout-induced glitch can create errors that are even worse (harder to recover from) than software glitches because wired logic doesn't have anything equivalent to code checksums or interrupt vectors. Well-paid FPGA designers are versed in the arcane art of self-verifying logic.
EEPROM types
Come alive at boot up and are much more resistant to glitches. Their performance, however, is slow. And you have limited (100,000 maybe) rewrite cycles.
Anti-fuse types
are made by Actel. They have the highest performance and best density. They come alive at boot up and are dead-nuts reliable under the worst of conditions; for example, properly qualified, they can survive the cosmic radiation in spacecraft that would leave other types toasted. The big drawback: the anti-fuse process, which works by melting diodes into short-circuits, is not eraseable.
Desktop systems (say, an add-on FPGA card) would be best served by SRAM types, since you already have a processor that requires gluttinous gobs of puritanically clean DC power. Basement hardware hackers would be better served by EEPROM or anitfuse types (depending on performance requirements), since they don't require super-expensive exotic design software.