4 ms·

I think that along the hardware problem of integrating both chips on the same die, the other problematics are about their programmation. We have a pretty advanc

by jstoja 11y ago

I think that along the hardware problem of integrating both chips on the same die, the other problematics are about their programmation. We have a pretty advanced abstraction when it comes to CPU nowadays, but looking at some code to program FPGAs we definitely can see that it's not that simple for developers to enter this world.

nitrogen 11y ago
There's a bit of a bootstrapping/catch-22 problem with FPGAs. Right now they are all mostly proprietary hardware with proprietary development tools, so only the most demanding niches will invest. Because they only see niche use, nobody invests in more general tools. If Intel added a fully open, fully specified FPGA to a CPU, that anyone could write tools for, that could change.
Ericson2314 11y ago
Actually I'd argue x86 is huge and scary, and Windows/Unix on x86 huger and scarier, but plain sequential circuits quiet simple. The actual problem (as stated in the other comments) is that the tooling is all proprietary (huge and scary) and has received NO love.
- adwn 11y ago
  "Plain sequential circuits" are also quite slow and therefore useless as accelerators alongside modern x64 CPUs.
creshal 11y ago
> the hardware problem of integrating both chips on the same die Mostly a non-issue. Multi-chip packages have been around for decades. Intel has been putting DRAM chips onto their CPU packages (for their Iris Pro graphics chips) for a few generations now; Core i CPUs also have on-chip PCIE controllers together with their QPI inter-cpu interface, if for some reason the latter can't be made to work with FPGAs.
floatboth 11y ago
OpenCL? https://www.altera.com/products/design-software/embedded-software-developers/opencl/overview.html https://www.altera.com/products/design-software/embedded-sof... There are even vendors marketing PCI FPGA cards as "OpenCL FPGA cards": http://www.nallatech.com/solutions/fpga-accelerated-computing/opencl-fpga-cards/ http://www.nallatech.com/solutions/fpga-accelerated-computin...

by jstoja 11y ago

nitrogen 11y ago

There's a bit of a bootstrapping/catch-22 problem with FPGAs. Right now they are all mostly proprietary hardware with proprietary development tools, so only the most demanding niches will invest. Because they only see niche use, nobody invests in more general tools. If Intel added a fully open, fully specified FPGA to a CPU, that anyone could write tools for, that could change.

Ericson2314 11y ago

Actually I'd argue x86 is huge and scary, and Windows/Unix on x86 huger and scarier, but plain sequential circuits quiet simple. The actual problem (as stated in the other comments) is that the tooling is all proprietary (huge and scary) and has received NO love.

adwn 11y ago
"Plain sequential circuits" are also quite slow and therefore useless as accelerators alongside modern x64 CPUs.

creshal 11y ago

> the hardware problem of integrating both chips on the same die Mostly a non-issue. Multi-chip packages have been around for decades. Intel has been putting DRAM chips onto their CPU packages (for their Iris Pro graphics chips) for a few generations now; Core i CPUs also have on-chip PCIE controllers together with their QPI inter-cpu interface, if for some reason the latter can't be made to work with FPGAs.

floatboth 11y ago

OpenCL? https://www.altera.com/products/design-software/embedded-software-developers/opencl/overview.html https://www.altera.com/products/design-software/embedded-sof... There are even vendors marketing PCI FPGA cards as "OpenCL FPGA cards": http://www.nallatech.com/solutions/fpga-accelerated-computing/opencl-fpga-cards/ http://www.nallatech.com/solutions/fpga-accelerated-computin...