Slashdot Mirror
Move Over Moore's Law, Make Way For Huang's Law (ieee.org)
Tekla Perry writes: Are graphics processors a law unto themselves? Nvidia's Jensen Huang says a 25-times speedup over five years is evidence that they are. He calls this the 'supercharged law,' and says it's time to start counting advances on multiple fronts, including architecture, interconnects, memory technology, and algorithms, not just circuits on a chip.
Bitcoin's Law. It's all about hashes per second and still a pointless metric!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I think the attractive aspect of Moore's law was that it was simple and everyone got the general gist. Some people like to argue about the details but they mostly don't have anything else to do with their time.
I don't think we need a Huang's law. If you asks what Huang's Law is, everyone will just say it's like Moore's law except applied to GPU's.
Same applies to all those other people who want to name things after themselves.
>> t's time to start counting advances on multiple fronts
Hobbiests have for a while, ever since last-generation AMD stumbled and Intel slowed down the processor speed increases for a while. Now that Ryzen is out, graphics chips are ruling desktops, and no one cares about Intel in the mobile space, we're finally seeing progress get back toward Moore's Law's long-term trend line.
Moore's Law: the density of devices (transistors) that can be packed into a microchip doubles roughly every 18 months.
Or phrased more colloquially, if partially inaccurately:
Moore's Law: every 18 months, the speed of hardware doubles.
Gates' Law: every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
I thought Moore's comments had to do with the impact of transistor counts on cost. Huang seems to be talking about increased performance without reference to cost. I'm not a gamer, but isn't there a lot of squawking about GPU costs? I wasn't at the talk, so maybe Huang addressed that as well. [Maybe he also assumed people would do the cost vs performance calculation in their heads.]
Moore's Law exclusively talked about transistor count. Speed aside:
GTX 770 in 2013 : 3.5bn transistors.
GTX 1070 in 2017: 7.2bn transistors
Moore's law is dead, but not because you defeated it, but because you failed to live up to it just like the CPU vendors did.
We have been counting advances on multiple fronts since the Intel Core architecture debuted 12 years ago, but welcome to the 21st century Jensen Huang.
Let's not call any and all predictions laws. They're not laws. They are functions fit on a short stretch of data that have no predictive power in the future. Not even experts can predict the future, a "law" has no chance here.
Sounds like wang.
Shouldn't we be calling them BPU's now?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Everyone gets a law now
Yes, that's the well known "Anonymous Coward's Law".
So Quantum computers are roughly following Moore's Law in their power. Are we going to rename that to the Q's Law.?
The word "law" in this context is taken from science to describe an effect that always holds true. After watching Moore's Law break down, could we please name this new related observation for graphics cards something more accurate and realistic? How about Huang's Principle or Huang's Observation?
This is "Nvidia Is Getting Desperate's Law" at best: No huge leaps ahead in GPU design or game lighting calculation quality every 18 months? (Distraction in 3...2...1...) "Buuut the 640 Tensooooooooooor cores are sooooo fast zomgggg... realtime denoising.... zomgggg.... the Artificial Intelligences are learning faster.... zommmggggg.... that we need to name a new law about them.... (Reference to Shadow Warrior: "Who wants some Huang???")
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
While Moore's Law is a doubling in density every 18 months, this 25 times speedup in 5 years is achieved via a doubling every 13 months.
Moore's Law is an economic one, not a strictly a technological one. Although, keeping it going depends on semiconductor processes getting finer.
The costs per nanoacre more-or-less follow a predictable curve relative to how bleeding-edge a process is required to fabricate a chip. If you need a really old process, availability will be low, so demand will push the costs up. If you're using the latest, availability is low and yields will initially be low, so the costs are way up. Everything in-between is pretty cheap because demand tends to go towards newer stuff, and the fabrication plant for those middle-aged processes has already started depreciating-out.
If you're trying to be an industry leader, you're targeting the newest processes, so you have the highest expenses. As a result, you want to keep your chip small because costs scale with semiconductor area (N chips per wafer, X dollars per wafer, etc.).
However, there's a lower bound on that. If you've got a chip with over a thousand pins, like a high-end microprocessor, the chip has to be physically large enough to have that many bumps to wire out to pins. Also, there's the case of heat dissipation to consider. A teeny-tiny part that draws a lot of current may shatter or desolder itself if there's not enough surface area to mate with the thermal solution.
So, you want to be small, but there's a lower bound to that. That implies wasted space on the die, which you're going to pay for, anyway. What to do with it?
Add a core! Make the pipelines deeper! More cache! Add some multimedia accelerators. Add an FPGA! Add some other dedicated-function unit! Then present it as a bullet-point for selling more of your part versus your competitor.
Ergo, Moore's Law.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
The cost of the fab plants has also been growing exponentially. It hasn't been doubling every 18 months and we (consumers) haven't noticed because the cost of the fabs has been spread out over more chips being made. Unfortunately more and more manufacturers are now fabless. Meaning the actual manufacturing is more concentrated. However the bigger thing we should worry about is the end of exponential grow of chip demand. When that happens it won't just be an engineering problem to pack more transistors in but to do so economically. That will be the end of Moore's Law (prediction). I don't see that bloat of software ending anytime soon.
The DGX-2 which is 500x faster than 2 GTX 580s is also 500 times more expensive!
https://www.nextplatform.com/2...
AmiMoJo forgot his password again.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Moore's Law: the density of devices (transistors) that can be packed into a microchip doubles roughly every 18 months.
It is not actually the density of transistors but the number of transistors for a given cost. This can be accomplished by density increases but also by ICs which are larger in area. It is often done at the expense of transistor performance.
Lost my mod points - too slow to mod, too lazy to be faster -lol-
Someone please mod this +1 INFORMATIVE
redneck geek