Slashdot Mirror


Sacrificing Accuracy For Speed and Efficiency In Processors

Skudd writes "Modern computing has always been reliant on accuracy and correct answers. Now, a professor at Rice University in Houston posits that some future applications could be revolutionized by 'probabilistic computing.' Quoting: 'This afternoon, Krishna Palem, speaking at a computer science meeting in San Francisco, will announce results of the first real-world test of his probabilistic computer chip: The chip, which thrives on random errors, ran seven times faster than today's best technology while using just 1/30th the electricity. ... The high density of transistors on existing chips also leads to a lot of background "noise." To compensate, engineers increase the voltage applied to computer circuits to overpower the noise and ensure precise calculations. Palem began wondering how much a slight reduction in the quality of calculations might improve speed and save energy. He soon realized that some information was more valuable than other information. For example, in calculating a bank balance of $13,000.81, getting the "13" correct is much more important than the "81." Producing an answer of $13,000.57 is much closer to being correct than $57,000.81. While Palem's technology may not have a future in calculating missions to Mars, it probably has one in such applications as streaming music and video on mobile devices, he said.'

15 of 499 comments (clear)

  1. Bank balance by johnny+cashed · · Score: 5, Funny

    And $81,000.31 is a much more correct answer!

    1. Re:Bank balance by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you are listening to music on a portable media device, it's safe to say that you aren't going to be able to hear the difference between the lossy format and the lossless format.

      It's like drinking from a well. Connoisseurs may claim to be able to taste the difference between it and tap water, but that's just the extra tang from all the bull shit.

    2. Re:Bank balance by Hojima · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are countless applications for a computer that don't depend on accuracy, but do depend on speed. For example: gaming, stock analysis, scientific/mathematical research etc. Just about every use for the computer can benefit from this. Bear in mind these applications can take the hit of inaccuracy, if not benefit from it depending on the situation. Yes there are some instances were accuracy is crucial, but that's why they will continue to make both of the processors. It's what they call a free market, and there will be always be a new niche to fill.

  2. Reminds me of... by rob1980 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: Why didn't Intel call the Pentium the 586?
    A: Because they added 486 and 100 on the first Pentium and got 585.999983605.

    1. Re:Reminds me of... by machine321 · · Score: 5, Funny

      My computer's not slow, it's just being careful.

  3. Accuracy with financial calculations. by onion2k · · Score: 5, Funny

    Accuracy with financial calculations is extremely important. Hasn't this guy ever watched Superman 3?

  4. wll, by greenguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    i scrfcd accrc 4 spd a lng tm ago

    --
    What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    1. Re:wll, by vux984 · · Score: 5, Funny

      i scrfcd accrc 4 spd a lng tm ago

      and it was going so well too... until you got thirsty and told your friend ..

      "hy! I wnt sm ck!"

  5. Top Ten Slogans by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Funny

    TOP TEN SLOGANS FOR THIS NEW PROCESSOR:

    9.9999973251 - It's a FLAW, Dammit, not a Bug

    8.9999163362 - It's the new math

    7.9999414610 - Nearly 300 Correct Opcodes

    6.9999831538 - "You Don't Need to Know What's Inside" (tm)

    5.9999835137 - Redefining the PC -- and Mathematics As Well

    4.9999999021 - We Fixed It, Really

    3.9998245917 - Division Considered Harmful

    2.9991523619 - Why Do You Think They Call It *Floating* Point?

    1.9999103517 - We're Looking for a Few Good Flaws

    0.9999999998 - "The Errata Inside" (tm)

  6. Re:Hmmm by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    You get a one-way ticket to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

    Watch out for your cornhole, bud.

  7. Re:Hmmm by PitViper401 · · Score: 5, Funny

    But what about the conjugal visits?!

  8. Re:uhhh.... by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Informative

    NEWS FLASH: Binary consists of 1 and 0.

    NEWS FLASH: People use computers for calculations with more than single-digit binary results.

    "probablistic computing" is another way of saying "sloppy engineering".

    No- insisting on excessive precision where an "almost certainly right to within +/- x%" solution would be more than good enough and much simpler to obtain is known as overengineering.

    I suspect that the financial examples chosen didn't illustrate the point as well as intended (financial companies generally don't like *any* inaccuracy), but that doesn't change the general principle.

    Would you prefer a routing algorithm that gobbled up power and took ages to run for a guaranteed shortest route or one that was far more efficient and 99.9% certain to give a route that was within 3% of the shortest possible distance?

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  9. Obligatory NASA research by DirePickle · · Score: 5, Funny
    From NASA:

    Computer scientist Arthur Boran was ecstatic. A few minutes earlier, he had programmed a basic mathematical problem into his prototypical Akron I computer. His request was simply, "Give me the sum of every odd number between zero and ten." The computer's quick answer, 157, was unexpected, to say the least. With growing excitement, Boran requested an explanation of the computer's reasoning. The printout read as follows: THE TERM "ODD NUMBER" IS AMBIGUOUS. I THEREFORE CHOOSE TO INTERPRET IT AS MEANING "A NUMBER THAT IS FUNNY LOOKING." USING MY AESTHETIC JUDGEMENT, I PICKED THE NUMBERS 3, 8, AND 147, ADDED THEM UP, AND GOT 157.

    A few moments later there was an addendum: I GUESS I MEANT 158.

    Followed shortly thereafter by: 147 IS MORE THAN 10, ISN'T IT? SORRY.

  10. Re:Sacrifices are expected by ljw1004 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That was a very confusing video. What I learned from it: you haven't done some stuff, Zoom Fish!, widgets, Zoom Fish!, behind schedule, zoom, Fish!, widget framework, Fish!

    I guess it's a system that lets you zoom in on fish?

  11. Article badly misrepresents the idea by Jimmy_B · · Score: 5, Informative

    The author of the linked article has completely misunderstood what this research is about. It is NOT about tolerating errors in the output of computations; that would be completely infeasible. It's about tolerating errors in intermediate values, by using redundancy. For example, three adders made out of unreliable transistors plus a control unit to have them vote, may be smaller and use less power than one adder made out of reliable transistors. However, you can't make everything out of unreliable transistors. In particular, the control unit, and the parts that compare results to each other, have to work reliably and can't be duplicated. That is what is meant by "some information was more valuable than other information", not the low-order bits of a numeric computation.