4 ms·

It makes me a bit sad that for ten years I took it for granted that Moore’s law is dead and notebooks are constantly overheating incapable computers just to lea

It makes me a bit sad that for ten years I took it for granted that Moore’s law is dead and notebooks are constantly overheating incapable computers just to learn that the whole issue was Intel messing up their process nodes.

mlyle 5y ago
It's both. It's harder and harder to grind out progress (and if you compare M1 to where the 90's-early 2000's exponential progression, we're not so close). As it gets harder, it becomes more capital intensive and the probability of success on any given process node decreases. The marginal utility of a doubling of computing is likely decreasing with time, too. At some point, these factors are going to compound to slow progress. Or: exponential progressions never continue forever.
- brokencode 5y ago
  I don’t think the marginal utility of doubling computing will diminish any time soon. As we gain more computing power, we just start doing more and more computation heavy tasks that weren’t possible before. For example, VR games are notoriously demanding on today’s hardware, especially if you want to put that hardware in the headset. And many applications get slower over time, not faster, as new features are added. This is especially true in an era of cross platform frameworks that are convenient for developers, but are much slower than native.
  - Justsignedup 5y ago
    Also old programs had to hyoeroptimize because it either is that or it's too slow. Today the speed of the computer makes it incredibly forgiving.
    - kizer 5y ago
      … Electron
  - mlyle 5y ago
    Marginal utility of anything decreases as you have more. And it obviously has in computing. E.g. 20 years ago, you could buy a P3-1GHz for $200 or P3-750MHz for $100. So you'd pay about $100 more (2001) for 850 more Dhrystone MIPS. Vs. modern processors where for a few hundred bucks you get >500,000 DMIPS in a package. You would not choose to pay $150 (2021) more for 850 more DMIPS (< 0.2% more performance). I think this is true even if you consider things on a log scale; a doubling is worth less now than it was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago nearly anyone could tell the difference and would pay a bunch more for twice the performance, and now a big subset of the computing market wouldn't.
    - brokencode 5y ago
      Doubling performance might not be directly noticeable for the average smartphone user as an example, but it is definitely noticeable to the average app developer, who can spend more time on user experience and less time on optimization. Better performance also enables new forms of technology, such as AR, VR, ray tracing, advanced image processing for smartphone cameras, etc. These are visible and sought after by regular users. Users can tell the difference, it’s just that they might not realize that the new features are enabled by higher performance of the hardware.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        Look, I think you're missing the point: - First, the marginal value of 1MIP has plummeted in the past 40 years to near nothing. When my dad programmed on the 1401, another .01DMIPS would be worth ~$100,000 (1960s dollars, or $86 million 2021 dollars/DMIP). Now another 100000DMIPS is worth almost nothing (Maybe $0.006/DMIP today). So there's really no debate about declining marginal utility of computation vs. time. - Second, developer productivity is great and all, but only a tiny proportion of computing units go to developers. Therefore, we can't assume that increased developer productivity will necessarily pay for new process nodes (with increasing capital costs and risks and decreasing benefits for end-users). - Third, YES, finding new apps is the only thing that can keep things moving. But my point is: the proportion of the marketplace that is seeking above-baseline features and are willing to pay a premium for them is an ever shrinking portion. Replacement cycles for computers are, overall, lengthening, and the proportion of the market that buys the high end is steadily decreasing. This makes paying for ever-more-expensive process nodes more difficult. - Fourth, when we were really enjoying Moore's law and areal density was improving significantly, better process nodes were clearly worth it: they lowered the cost to manufacture existing parts by yielding more parts per wafer. That is, the fabs wanted to shrink ASAP even without new use cases because of the improving economic picture. This is no longer the case. - Fifth, eventually a doubling costs more than the entire world economic output, as eventually doubling will get harder and harder. No matter how many killer apps you find in #3, you can't keep this going forever.
smoldesu 5y ago
That's not entirely true: Intel's year-over-year gains weren't particularly great, but that's because they tended to use more refined manufacturing processes on older, cheaper nodes. Lo and behold, when Apple decides to go all-in on the 5nm process, the entire world's semiconductor distribution network screeches to a halt, and we get the worst silicon drought in decades. It's a bit of a moot-point. I prefer AMD processors where I can get it, but Intel's position in the market is far from as dire as people make it out to be. Until Apple can find a way to challenge their single-core performance, Intel will still be leading a class of their own.
- theevilsharpie 5y ago
  > Until Apple can find a way to challenge their single-core performance, Intel will still be leading a class of their own. M1's single-core performance beat out all but the highest-end AMD and Intel desktop chips at the time of its release.
fomine3 5y ago
MacBook series' thermal design is considered bad compared to other laptops for a long time. It accidentally helped a bit people think M1 is great and Intel is bad (though it's mostly true). (I believe it's not intended.)
- pornel 5y ago
  Apple put M1 in the exact same bad enclosures they were using before, so the Apples-to-Apples comparison is still valid :)
  - fomine3 5y ago
    Yes that's the point. Apple enclosure + Intel CPU was worst one.

mlyle 5y ago

It's both. It's harder and harder to grind out progress (and if you compare M1 to where the 90's-early 2000's exponential progression, we're not so close). As it gets harder, it becomes more capital intensive and the probability of success on any given process node decreases. The marginal utility of a doubling of computing is likely decreasing with time, too. At some point, these factors are going to compound to slow progress. Or: exponential progressions never continue forever.

brokencode 5y ago
I don’t think the marginal utility of doubling computing will diminish any time soon. As we gain more computing power, we just start doing more and more computation heavy tasks that weren’t possible before. For example, VR games are notoriously demanding on today’s hardware, especially if you want to put that hardware in the headset. And many applications get slower over time, not faster, as new features are added. This is especially true in an era of cross platform frameworks that are convenient for developers, but are much slower than native.
- Justsignedup 5y ago
  Also old programs had to hyoeroptimize because it either is that or it's too slow. Today the speed of the computer makes it incredibly forgiving.
  - kizer 5y ago
    … Electron
- mlyle 5y ago
  Marginal utility of anything decreases as you have more. And it obviously has in computing. E.g. 20 years ago, you could buy a P3-1GHz for $200 or P3-750MHz for $100. So you'd pay about $100 more (2001) for 850 more Dhrystone MIPS. Vs. modern processors where for a few hundred bucks you get >500,000 DMIPS in a package. You would not choose to pay $150 (2021) more for 850 more DMIPS (< 0.2% more performance). I think this is true even if you consider things on a log scale; a doubling is worth less now than it was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago nearly anyone could tell the difference and would pay a bunch more for twice the performance, and now a big subset of the computing market wouldn't.
  - brokencode 5y ago
    Doubling performance might not be directly noticeable for the average smartphone user as an example, but it is definitely noticeable to the average app developer, who can spend more time on user experience and less time on optimization. Better performance also enables new forms of technology, such as AR, VR, ray tracing, advanced image processing for smartphone cameras, etc. These are visible and sought after by regular users. Users can tell the difference, it’s just that they might not realize that the new features are enabled by higher performance of the hardware.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      Look, I think you're missing the point: - First, the marginal value of 1MIP has plummeted in the past 40 years to near nothing. When my dad programmed on the 1401, another .01DMIPS would be worth ~$100,000 (1960s dollars, or $86 million 2021 dollars/DMIP). Now another 100000DMIPS is worth almost nothing (Maybe $0.006/DMIP today). So there's really no debate about declining marginal utility of computation vs. time. - Second, developer productivity is great and all, but only a tiny proportion of computing units go to developers. Therefore, we can't assume that increased developer productivity will necessarily pay for new process nodes (with increasing capital costs and risks and decreasing benefits for end-users). - Third, YES, finding new apps is the only thing that can keep things moving. But my point is: the proportion of the marketplace that is seeking above-baseline features and are willing to pay a premium for them is an ever shrinking portion. Replacement cycles for computers are, overall, lengthening, and the proportion of the market that buys the high end is steadily decreasing. This makes paying for ever-more-expensive process nodes more difficult. - Fourth, when we were really enjoying Moore's law and areal density was improving significantly, better process nodes were clearly worth it: they lowered the cost to manufacture existing parts by yielding more parts per wafer. That is, the fabs wanted to shrink ASAP even without new use cases because of the improving economic picture. This is no longer the case. - Fifth, eventually a doubling costs more than the entire world economic output, as eventually doubling will get harder and harder. No matter how many killer apps you find in #3, you can't keep this going forever.

smoldesu 5y ago

That's not entirely true: Intel's year-over-year gains weren't particularly great, but that's because they tended to use more refined manufacturing processes on older, cheaper nodes. Lo and behold, when Apple decides to go all-in on the 5nm process, the entire world's semiconductor distribution network screeches to a halt, and we get the worst silicon drought in decades. It's a bit of a moot-point. I prefer AMD processors where I can get it, but Intel's position in the market is far from as dire as people make it out to be. Until Apple can find a way to challenge their single-core performance, Intel will still be leading a class of their own.

theevilsharpie 5y ago
> Until Apple can find a way to challenge their single-core performance, Intel will still be leading a class of their own. M1's single-core performance beat out all but the highest-end AMD and Intel desktop chips at the time of its release.

fomine3 5y ago

MacBook series' thermal design is considered bad compared to other laptops for a long time. It accidentally helped a bit people think M1 is great and Intel is bad (though it's mostly true). (I believe it's not intended.)

pornel 5y ago
Apple put M1 in the exact same bad enclosures they were using before, so the Apples-to-Apples comparison is still valid :)
- fomine3 5y ago
  Yes that's the point. Apple enclosure + Intel CPU was worst one.