4 ms·
IBM had 5GHZ in 2014. [1] Clock speed is not a measure of performance alone. Besides, most of the work in reaching a certain clock speed or target can be owed
by timpattinson 4y ago
IBM had 5GHZ in 2014. [1] Clock speed is not a measure of performance alone.
Besides, most of the work in reaching a certain clock speed or target can be owed to the foundry (in this case TSMC which is world-leading, certainly beating Intel on most metrics at the moment.)
Comparing to the over-tuned enthusiast SKU of 2018 is not a fair comparison for either.
Also 600W is not impossible to cool, there are GPUs at that level of power for a while now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER8
- rayiner 4y agoIBM hit 5 ghz in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6. IBM’s Cell hit 4 ghz in 2006 on a 65 nm process.
- Symmetry 4y agoThe advantages of chopping up chopping your pipeline stages in half so that each is 10 FO4s long rather than the 16 FO4s most people use. You've generally got 2 FO4s of latching and 2 of clock skew so IBM was seeing 6 FO4s of useful work per stage compared to 12 with Intel. Or at least the overhead was 4 per stage in the mid 2000s, I've got no idea what they are in the early 2020s.
- rbanffy 4y agoAnd, if you have enough threads per core, it's relatively simple to switch to another thread when an instruction stalls. Unfortunately, most our software is designed for machines with few fast cores.