4 ms·

ATI demonstrated FP24 was frickin' awesome over a decade and a half ago. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you went somewhere like that, but it perplexes

ATI demonstrated FP24 was frickin' awesome over a decade and a half ago. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you went somewhere like that, but it perplexes me as to why you think that's secret sauce in any way long after ATI nearly destroyed NVIDIA with FP24 back in the early days of DirectX 9 and NV3x.

londons_explore 9y ago
I don't think it is secret sauce. If you're gonna let customers send operations to these TPU's, one could figure out what kind of multiplier is used almost immediately upon inspection of a few inputs and outputs.
dogma1138 9y ago
This isn’t exactly correct. ATI pulled a “fast one” and went with 24bit despite the initial DX9 spec called for 16/32 bit floats which NVIDIA followed. Once DX9 was split into DX9b and c that “advantage” went away and NVIDIA proved that 16/32 bit was better, something that ATI also had to adopt once MSFT told them enough is enough. 24bit is only better as long as it can do everything 32bit can do and it’s advantageous to build a hardware with 24bit FPUs instead of 32bit FPUs that can also do 2x16bit ops per cycle. Basically if the silicon cost allow you to put far more 24bit FPUs than 32/16bit ones. And history proved that this isn’t the case. For gaming eventually even 2:1 FPUs went away since they are costlier than only 32bit FPUs with promotion. Maybe in the future we’ll have a 24bit FPU that can also do 3 8bit ops or 16bit+8bit op per cycle if it will be more beneficial than the current 2:1 16/32bit model.
- oneshot908 9y ago
  I personally would stick to FP32 across the board for my ML efforts, but we have an entire cottage industry of people coming up with approximations to drive up perf and perf/W, all of which will prove irrelevant until Moore's Law runs out IMO. And even then, I'll still stick to FP32 personally. Speaking from direct experience, bulletproof mixed precision is tough.

londons_explore 9y ago

I don't think it is secret sauce. If you're gonna let customers send operations to these TPU's, one could figure out what kind of multiplier is used almost immediately upon inspection of a few inputs and outputs.

dogma1138 9y ago

This isn’t exactly correct. ATI pulled a “fast one” and went with 24bit despite the initial DX9 spec called for 16/32 bit floats which NVIDIA followed. Once DX9 was split into DX9b and c that “advantage” went away and NVIDIA proved that 16/32 bit was better, something that ATI also had to adopt once MSFT told them enough is enough. 24bit is only better as long as it can do everything 32bit can do and it’s advantageous to build a hardware with 24bit FPUs instead of 32bit FPUs that can also do 2x16bit ops per cycle. Basically if the silicon cost allow you to put far more 24bit FPUs than 32/16bit ones. And history proved that this isn’t the case. For gaming eventually even 2:1 FPUs went away since they are costlier than only 32bit FPUs with promotion. Maybe in the future we’ll have a 24bit FPU that can also do 3 8bit ops or 16bit+8bit op per cycle if it will be more beneficial than the current 2:1 16/32bit model.

oneshot908 9y ago
I personally would stick to FP32 across the board for my ML efforts, but we have an entire cottage industry of people coming up with approximations to drive up perf and perf/W, all of which will prove irrelevant until Moore's Law runs out IMO. And even then, I'll still stick to FP32 personally. Speaking from direct experience, bulletproof mixed precision is tough.