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.
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.
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)
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.
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: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.
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
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.
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
... 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.