4 ms·
The point with 3d layout is that you can have shorter interconnects, which means far less resistive heating, and less junction loss. It also means that your pat
by ori_b 15y ago
The point with 3d layout is that you can have shorter interconnects, which means far less resistive heating, and less junction loss. It also means that your path lengths can be shortened, possibly allowing you to bump up the frequency.
Stacking stuff means you should be able to run cooler for the same amount of processing power.
1000x? I think that's probably BS. But I can see this being a significant win.
- jackfoxy 15y agoHow about L1 cache (or even just L3 cache) measured in gigabytes? That won't increase the execution speed of individual instructions, but your effective processing power would increase dramatically.
- ori_b 15y agoThe problem is that as cache size gets bigger, the associative memory lookup gets slower. There's a tradeoff.
- spp 15y agoWhat? Why is this, isn't memory indexed for direct access?
- ori_b 15y agoWe're talking about cache, where the addresses of blocks in cache do not have a 1:1 mapping with addresses in memory. Read the section on associativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache
- sparky 15y agoYou get to choose your associativity, you could build a direct-mapped 1GB L1 cache if you wanted. More fundamentally, a memory's access time grows with its capacity because the average and worst-case distances from a bitcell to the read/write port are longer.
- rbanffy 15y agoIf you pack enough memory in the same package and connect it to the CPU through a bus that's fast enough, on-chip memory that used to be used for caches can get promoted to main memory and off-chip RAM becomes a fast cache for your SSDs and a way to synchronize context between different chip stacks. Put the GPU and VRAM on the stack and all you need is a couple HDMI ports going out of the chip.
- keeperofdakeys 15y agoCache is already about as fast as you can get without significant compromises in size. L1 cache runs at speeds fast enough that increasing the size (and average seek time), or increasing the distance the signal has to travel, will decrease access times significantly. So it doesn't become about how 'fast' the bus is, or how much memory you can pack on.
- rbanffy 15y agoPutting a good chunk of memory between the processor and the external memory bus would allow interconnection through a much faster bus than the external one, reducing the penalty of a cache miss.
- sliverstorm 15y agoThe two of you are arguing about different things. You are arguing the point of increasing cache to reduce misses. The other guy is arguing that increasing cache size will degrade cache performance as a unit. These are distinct arguments.
- rbanffy 15y agoIf you pack enough memory in the same package and connect it to the CPU through a bus that's fast enough, on-chip memory that used to be used for caches can get promoted to main memory and off-chip RAM becomes a fast cache for your SSDs and a way to synchronize context between different chip stacks. Put the GPU and VRAM on the stack and all you need is a couple HDMI ports going out of the chip.
- sliverstorm 15y agoThis makes me think of an interesting question- the back side of a die is raw silicon. How do you stack die and still interconnect? Do you sink metal through the bottom of the wafer?
- sparky 15y agoYes, through-silicon vias are metal-plated holes that go clear through the wafer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through-silicon_via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through-silicon_via ).