4 ms·

Intel famously followed the "tick-tock" model where they would alternate between designing a new architecture and then moving that architecture to a new proces

Intel famously followed the "tick-tock" model where they would alternate between designing a new architecture and then moving that architecture to a new processing node. So not sure it's true that you can't shrink down a largely similar architecture from one process to another. Obviously it's fallen off the wagon a bit here, but seems more due to operational issues at Intel than it being fundamentally not doable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick%E2%80%93tock_model

wtallis 4y ago
That tick-tock model actually illustrates that it takes significant work to re-do the physical layout of a design for a new process node, even if the higher-level microarchitecture design remains unchanged. You don't get the benefits of a full node shrink for free.
- MR4D 4y ago
  I look at it differently. The first step is to prove the process - to the appropriate level of control limits, and then the second step is to optimize the process. You may say it's "significant", but if you look at it another way, it de-risks both tasks as opposed to doing both at the same time but having much higher risk. So in my mind, the "significant work" is less relevant, as the derisking is much more important.
- lallysingh 4y ago
  Yeah, they're basically spending 1 cycle porting the design to a new process, then another cycle with optimizing it. The hardware side's optimizing the process on the first cycle, then doing a new one on the second. Can you imagine having to live this life? Port to a new platform every other release?
- dwaite 4y ago
  Not necessarily - tic-tock let them double the number of new product releases compared to having new architectures launch simultaneously on new processes. Doubling the number of product releases was valuable competitively, as well as reducing their risk of having dated products if a deadline was missed. There was work for sure to move to a new process, but that wasn't necessarily duplicated work with the architecture being created on a prior process. My impression was that it was already parallelized, and that not having to develop new architectures on new processes prevented a fair bit of contention.

wtallis 4y ago

That tick-tock model actually illustrates that it takes significant work to re-do the physical layout of a design for a new process node, even if the higher-level microarchitecture design remains unchanged. You don't get the benefits of a full node shrink for free.

MR4D 4y ago
I look at it differently. The first step is to prove the process - to the appropriate level of control limits, and then the second step is to optimize the process. You may say it's "significant", but if you look at it another way, it de-risks both tasks as opposed to doing both at the same time but having much higher risk. So in my mind, the "significant work" is less relevant, as the derisking is much more important.
lallysingh 4y ago
Yeah, they're basically spending 1 cycle porting the design to a new process, then another cycle with optimizing it. The hardware side's optimizing the process on the first cycle, then doing a new one on the second. Can you imagine having to live this life? Port to a new platform every other release?
dwaite 4y ago
Not necessarily - tic-tock let them double the number of new product releases compared to having new architectures launch simultaneously on new processes. Doubling the number of product releases was valuable competitively, as well as reducing their risk of having dated products if a deadline was missed. There was work for sure to move to a new process, but that wasn't necessarily duplicated work with the architecture being created on a prior process. My impression was that it was already parallelized, and that not having to develop new architectures on new processes prevented a fair bit of contention.