7 ms·
Comment I saw in a previous thread: Stone age Bronze age Iron age LK-99 (®) age https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36869209 https://news.ycombinator.com/
by optimalsolver 3y ago
Comment I saw in a previous thread:
Stone age
Bronze age
Iron age
LK-99 (®) age
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36869209 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36869209
- soligern 3y agoThis is definitely premature. If it’s real though, holy cow, can’t wait for my 200Ghz processor.
- whoopdedo 3y agoMy speakers will sound so much better with LK-99 Monster Brand cables.
- bick_nyers 3y agoThen I can finally stop prematurely optimizing my code!
- er4hn 3y agoUp until every Chrome tab spawns a new Fuchsia OS.
- Euphorbium 3y agoWhat tasks are cpu limited now? For me none.
- optimalsolver 3y agoProgram synthesis/symbolic regression.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- capableweb 3y agoNot just CPU speeds would be able to be increased though, lots of others could be increased too.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- willis936 3y agoThe draw calls for the 856th frame of counter strike this second won't queue themselves.
- topper-123 3y agoLots and lots of CI is cpu limited, for one thing.
- valine 3y agoMost of the algorithms we use in machine learning are chosen specifically because they parallelize well. If we could increase clock speeds arbitrarily high, a huge selection of algorithms we passed on would suddenly become viable.
- anonymoushn 3y agodo you not use web browsers or compilers?
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoyou'd be surprised how much of what you think is CPU limited is actually constrainted by memory bus bandwidth, locks, high cache evictions / bad cache use, or I/O. something as seemingly innocuous as checking and incrementing an atomic counter across a bunch of threads can induce a 10x performance drop it's totally batshit insane how much faster things run when they're able to work with stuff in L1 cache where they're not waiting on slower memory. modern CPUs are insanely fast and crazy concurrent, but the rest of the machine can't keep up.
- anonymoushn 3y agoI think for tasks like parsing javascript the parser is usually unable to saturate memory bandwidth. Whether that's because it's parsing to an in-memory representation that is a tangle of pointers all over the heap or because it is full of unpredictable branches seems unimportant as a user. The story is similar for LLVM. The fact that a CPU-bound task can be pessimized into stalling on cache and TLB misses all the time doesn't mean that it isn't CPU-bound. A commonly deployed compression format which is lauded as revolutionary has a decoder that contains 0 SIMD intrinsics and uses significantly-fewer-than-optimal number of interleaved streams (according to papers published many years before the format was standardized!), which drives up the length of the dependency chains, and if you try to decode many chunks at the same time then you also get into trouble because you can't fit many tables into cache. The decoder does not saturate memory bandwidth and toy decoders of similar codecs from papers published years before are predictably faster. The more ubiquitous compression formats are worse. It's common to encounter hash tables that underperform robin hood tables that support bulk operations by a factor of 100, applications that use red-black trees with individually allocated nodes as priority queues (as opposed to ternary heaps or b-trees or whatever), and sorts that underperform by a factor of 10 compared to radix sort of multi-key quick sort because they are written in terms of a comparator function that must run in its entirety, so that the subset of the items whose first-sorted-by field are the same cannot skip this comparison. This comparison is commonly a comparison of data behind a pointer rather than data present in the struct.
- ComputerGuru 3y agoVideo encoding.
- Euphorbium 3y agoReally? Not gpu?
- nemo44x 3y agoHaving 2000 tabs open.
- yellowcake0 3y agothis doesn't even make sense
- optimalsolver 3y agoWhat's confusing you?
- hcks 3y agoIt’s cringe, dude.
- optimalsolver 3y agoDude, you're now in the LK-99 Age. Learn to live with it.
- yellowcake0 3y agoit's not confusing, it's just silly, the Iron Age ended over 2000 years ago, so there were just no ages between the birth of Christ and LK-99?
- optimalsolver 3y agoNone which are generally accepted by historians that happen to be named after a single substance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-age_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-age_system
- yellowcake0 3y agoThat's only for prehistory. In any case it's a pretty silly contrivance, how about the oil age? or the silicon age? Both of those are likely to remain more impactful than the LK-99 age, in the event that it does turn out to be an ambient temp/pressure superconductor.
- 3y ago