3 ms·
Maybe something closer to a real-world design would be better, like "space-optimized 6502 processors per millimeter^2" or "kilobytes of SRAM per millimeter^2".
by elihu 4y ago
Maybe something closer to a real-world design would be better, like "space-optimized 6502 processors per millimeter^2" or "kilobytes of SRAM per millimeter^2".
Ideally you'd have some sort of metric that includes power efficiency, performance, and maybe even cost since smallness isn't really a feature in itself unless you're making something space-constrained like a hearing aid. It's hard to condense that down into a single number though.
- nomel 4y ago> like "space-optimized 6502 processors I don't think this is fair though. Some processes may support finfet, or gaffet, or some neat trick, where, if you switched to the process, but didn't optimize for size, you may be able to double the performance at half the power. Like you suggest, it's some crazy multidimensional problem space. There's no hope in representing it with one number. And, nobody that's actually designing would care about any of these numbers. In the end, they would only be used by marketing, which is all they're used for now.