4 ms·

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 computa

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.
    - brokencode 5y ago
      I am definitely missing your point. I was originally responding to your comment that the marginal utility of doubling performance is diminishing. I don’t believe it is. I never said the marginal utility of a DMIP or whatever isn’t decreasing, which I don’t think is relevant, since processor performance increases exponentially, not linearly. I also never said that it will be possible to keep on improving performance at the same rate forever. The rate of improvement is what is diminishing, not the value of the improvement. If we could keep on improving performance at the same rate forever, that’d be great, but we probably can’t. Fabs are still motivated by demand from their customers and competition. If a fab stops improving, they will either be surpassed (see Intel) or consumers will see less of a reason to upgrade their hardware, and the entire market will decline. Both are bad outcomes for the fab. So fabs will continue to push the envelope as long as it is physically possible and economically feasible.

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.
  - brokencode 5y ago
    I am definitely missing your point. I was originally responding to your comment that the marginal utility of doubling performance is diminishing. I don’t believe it is. I never said the marginal utility of a DMIP or whatever isn’t decreasing, which I don’t think is relevant, since processor performance increases exponentially, not linearly. I also never said that it will be possible to keep on improving performance at the same rate forever. The rate of improvement is what is diminishing, not the value of the improvement. If we could keep on improving performance at the same rate forever, that’d be great, but we probably can’t. Fabs are still motivated by demand from their customers and competition. If a fab stops improving, they will either be surpassed (see Intel) or consumers will see less of a reason to upgrade their hardware, and the entire market will decline. Both are bad outcomes for the fab. So fabs will continue to push the envelope as long as it is physically possible and economically feasible.