3 ms·
"Single-Chip Processors Have Reached Their Limits Announcements from XYZ and ABC prove that chiplets are the future, but interconnects remain a battleground"
by throwaway4good 5y ago
"Single-Chip Processors Have Reached Their Limits
Announcements from XYZ and ABC prove that chiplets are the future, but interconnects remain a battleground"
This could easily have been written 10 years ago, and I bet someone will write it in 10 years again.
We need these really big chips with their big powerful cores because the nature the computing we do only changes very slowly towards being distributed and parallelizable and thus able to use a massive number of smaller but far more efficient cores.
- Dylan16807 5y agoYou're implying you can't put big powerful cores on chiplets but that's not true at all.
- lazide 5y agoHardly - performance/core hasn’t flatlined, but has not maintained the same growth over time (decades) in performance we’ve traditionally had. That’s the problem. So if you want better aggregate performance, more cores has been the plan for a decade+ now. FLOP/s per core or whatever other metric you choose to use. Previously it was possible to get 20-50% or more performance improvements even year to year for a core.
- Dylan16807 5y agoI wasn't talking about improvement at all. This was about big strong cores versus efficient cores, which is a tradeoff that always exists. You could choose between 20 strong cores or 48 efficient cores on the same die space across four chiplets, for example.
- alain94040 5y agoCorrect. Also known as Rent's rule. According to Wikipedia, it first was mentioned in the 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent%27s_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent%27s_rule