5 ms·
As a computer-engineer, the circuit design needed to make a fast multiplication operation (ie: Wallace Tree, and similar) are an order-of-magnitude larger than
by dragontamer 3y ago
As a computer-engineer, the circuit design needed to make a fast multiplication operation (ie: Wallace Tree, and similar) are an order-of-magnitude larger than the circuit design needed for fast addition (ie: a Kogge-Stone Carry lookahead Adder).
This idea that additions and multiplications can be combined like this as "equivalent operations" is kinda bullshit. But hey, if its "how its done" (and its done this way because multiply-then-add is how you do matrix-multiplications...) then so be it.
Just remember that this is an arbitrary subdivision of a matrix multiplication operation, that may not have much relevance as a benchmark outside of matrix multiplications.
- fluoridation 3y agoIt was just an example, not necessarily a realistic one. The point is that we want to compare how quickly a processor will compute our problem, not how many instructions it's going to execute. If it was a car you want to compare things like its top speed and acceleration, not something inane like engine revolutions per kilometer. You measure and compare things that are relevant to the user, not implementation details.
- dragontamer 3y agoOkay, I think I see what you're saying now. I misinterpreted your statements earlier.
- magicalhippo 3y ago> not something inane like engine revolutions per kilometer Unrelated to the thread but I just read that Top Fuel dragster engines only do about 240 revolutions over the 1000 foot race[1]. Never thought of it like that before so blew my mind a little. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Fuel#Performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Fuel#Performance