5 ms·
Lay speculation here: If the first run is on a 28nm process, does this suggest the second generation on e.g. Intel's 14nm process might yield a drastically mor
by eganist 10y ago
Lay speculation here:
If the first run is on a 28nm process, does this suggest the second generation on e.g. Intel's 14nm process might yield a drastically more powerful HoloLens model in the current form factor, or at least a more compact one capable of all the same (assuming the optics were also compacted) for revision 2?
There's a whole ton of stuff I'm not taking into account such as the physical size of the current HPU, but my guess is that this is the largest point of improvement just going by the process alone.
- dcw303 10y agoWould they want to compact the optics though? I have absolutely no knowledge of the physics involved, but it looks like the projection style that is used has a very limited field of view that won't be resolved with more processing power. I don't see how shrinking the optics could help this. Because of this, it looks like future immersive improvements will be restricted, but I would be very happy to have it explained to me why I am wrong :) Edit: my pessimism around FOV was from reading this: http://doc-ok.org/?p=1274 http://doc-ok.org/?p=1274
- Eridrus 10y agoThe main thing people complain about in the HoloLens is the field of view; I don't know how much these chips are the bottleneck for that, but it seems like a problem you can throw more cores at, so I'm sort of expecting them to solve it that way, but I don't know a whole lot about hardware.
- hackcasual 10y agothat's almost certainly a limitation of the projector
- jimminy 10y agoI haven't tried them so I'm going by the models and demo's I've seen. I think the field of view issue is a physical limitation, not software, and only slightly hardware related. The peripheral vision is blocked out by the components. To achieve a wider field of view you have to shift components further back out of viewing range. and then modify the screens to wrap around in the new viewing frame. I don't think this has any impact of field of view for that reason.
- markingram 10y agoI believe it's not the cpu or gpu limiting the field of view. if you read the patents behind the waveguides, the real limitation seems to be in the waveguides. They need to make them thin enough for light to pass through, while at the same time refract light into you eyes at angles that don't result in major image distortions.
- sbierwagen 10y agoe.g. Intel's 14nm process Intel doesn't let anyone else use their fabs. TSMC has their own fabs, and their own fab tech. 14nm is outdated, by the way. TSMC says they'll start shipping 10nm parts by the end of the year: http://en.ctimes.com.tw/DispNews.asp?O=HJZ4GC65UYSSAA00NW http://en.ctimes.com.tw/DispNews.asp?O=HJZ4GC65UYSSAA00NW
- mappu 10y ago> Intel doesn't let anyone else use their fabs. I don't think this is true any more.
- sbierwagen 10y agoYou're talking about the Altera deal a while ago? Intel bought them last year.
- eximius 10y agoDid they just buy a license for ARM or announce they'd let people use their fabs for ARM?
- Eridrus 10y agoWhat about http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/overview.html http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/overview.html ?
- HammadB 10y agoYeah Intel Foundry has been alive and chuggin for a while now, fabbing chips for others.
- kyrra 10y agoThat changed a week ago (Intel making chips for others). http://www.recode.net/2016/8/16/12507216/lg-chip-manufacture-korea-intel http://www.recode.net/2016/8/16/12507216/lg-chip-manufacture... Also, it's important to understand that chip process measurement is not standard across the industry. 14nm has different measurements across different components across the vendors. See: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/221532-tsmc-will-begin-10nm-production-this-year-claims-5nm-by-2020 http://www.extremetech.com/computing/221532-tsmc-will-begin-...
- mappu 10y agoDepending on what format the IP was provided in, and the level at which Microsoft made their customization, it's not necessarily possible to just transplant it onto a newer process node.
- typon 10y agoNo. In fact pure performance will very likely be lower on the 14nm process. They might get better power/performance, but I would be willing to be that they won't even achieve that. The only thing guaranteed is higher density aka more of those Tensilica cores.
- Meegul 10y agoWhy would that be the case? 14nm FinFet designs tend to have a higher clockspeed (at least at the lower TDPs) while still consuming less power.
- BooneJS 10y agoPure speculation: 28nm masks and manufacturing are significantly cheaper than 16FF and newer, which likely helps meet the cost of HoloLens at the volume they're forecasting. Moving to 16ff or Intel's 14nm allows more for processing cores at a fixed die size, but also makes it more expensive. There's a reason it's called the bleeding edge. :)
- mud_dauber 10y agoCorrect. My co backed off 16FF in favor of 28nm for exactly this reason.
- john_reel 10y agoWhat is your company and product? I’m just curious.