4 ms·

Maybe in the case of CPUs. But, there is a fundamental technical shift going on away from computationally expensive things being done on CPUs and moving to AIAs

Maybe in the case of CPUs. But, there is a fundamental technical shift going on away from computationally expensive things being done on CPUs and moving to AIAs. I suspect that this is why Jensen said Moore's law is dead.

refulgentis 3y ago
Jensen said Moore's Law is dead because of the dichotomy explained a few times -- the free lunches are coming fewer and far between, you can't get a substantial performance boost and power decrease every 18 months, per Moore's Law. We are reaching the power:computational limits of silicon. Both GPU and CPU.
- latchkey 3y ago
  Here is the quote: “Moore’s Law’s dead,” Huang said, referring to the standard that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every two years. “And the ability for Moore’s Law to deliver twice the performance at the same cost, or at the same performance, half the cost, every year and a half, is over. It’s completely over, and so the idea that a chip is going to go down in cost over time, unfortunately, is a story of the past. Computing is a not a chip problem, it’s a software and chip problem,” Huang said. What we are seeing now are software engineers offloading computationally expensive workloads to AIA's, more and more. This is enabled through the use of libraries like PyTorch and access to HPC levels of compute that were not broadly accessible before.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    The 'AIA's also have a scaling limit, and the coordination overhead increases exponentially too. e.g. A million chickens could have a thousand times more muscle mass than two strong oxen, but I doubt anyone could plow a field even 2x faster with a million chickens. So it's only a net benefit when the work can be split up into tiny parallel chunks and then recombined with near perfect efficiently.
    - latchkey 3y ago
      > So it's only a net benefit when the work can be split up into tiny parallel chunks and then recombined with near perfect efficiently. Hasn't that pretty much always been the case? One thing we are seeing more and more of is composable fabrics where the PCIe bus is effectively being extended outside the case such that you log into a single instance, and instead of seeing just 8 AIA's, you now see 32+. This makes the coordination a lot easier.
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        I don't know how you keep rewording simple things everyone knows and are being patiently explained to you, as if you are encountering them the first time in the thread.
        latchkey 3y ago
        Which composable fabric am I talking about then?
        refulgentis 3y ago
        >> So it's only a net benefit when the work can be split up into tiny parallel chunks and then recombined with near perfect efficiently. > Hasn't that pretty much always been the case? I was talking about that, the fabric stuff is a non-sequitor, random hardware, doesn't make GPUs 2x in speed every 18 months, much less lead to a shift in everyday computing loads to GPUs. 1. Moore's Law also applies to GPUs. 2. If we could make use of 1000 cores for anything but long tail tasks, ye average CPU would have a lot more than 8 cores by now. That's what the million chickens thing is about. You can give me ultra-unobtianium fabric for "AIAs", it doesn't matter unless I have a algorithm that's massively parallelizable.
        latchkey 3y ago
        You seem stuck on the Moore's law of things and I've moved past that. To be clear, I was responding to this from the OP above: "and the coordination overhead increases exponentially too" Cross node coordination is complicated and more easily managed with composable fabrics, which is why I brought it up. -- I went back and read a bunch of your older comments here. At first, I thought it was personal but the tone that you use with me is carried across many comments that you've made to others. These also tend to be heavily downvoted. I went and looked you up a bit more, it seems you had an exit to Google and then worked there for a number of years. There is something about how you're communicating that seems brilliant, but at the same time, is missing some level of EQ. Like you're super smart, but also have some sort of ego about it all. As if you feel a deep need to somehow prove yourself as being "better" than the people around you. Saying things like this: "as if you are encountering them the first time in the thread"... is honestly, just rude. My goal here is to help educate and discuss things as best as I know how. If that isn't good enough for you, honestly, just keep it to yourself. Unlike you, I'm not putting my ego into it. If you have a personal problem with me or my background or what I'm saying, my suggestion would be to stick with the technicals and leave the ego at the door. Feel free to say whatever you want, but I won't respond to you any further.

refulgentis 3y ago

Jensen said Moore's Law is dead because of the dichotomy explained a few times -- the free lunches are coming fewer and far between, you can't get a substantial performance boost and power decrease every 18 months, per Moore's Law. We are reaching the power:computational limits of silicon. Both GPU and CPU.

latchkey 3y ago
Here is the quote: “Moore’s Law’s dead,” Huang said, referring to the standard that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every two years. “And the ability for Moore’s Law to deliver twice the performance at the same cost, or at the same performance, half the cost, every year and a half, is over. It’s completely over, and so the idea that a chip is going to go down in cost over time, unfortunately, is a story of the past. Computing is a not a chip problem, it’s a software and chip problem,” Huang said. What we are seeing now are software engineers offloading computationally expensive workloads to AIA's, more and more. This is enabled through the use of libraries like PyTorch and access to HPC levels of compute that were not broadly accessible before.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  The 'AIA's also have a scaling limit, and the coordination overhead increases exponentially too. e.g. A million chickens could have a thousand times more muscle mass than two strong oxen, but I doubt anyone could plow a field even 2x faster with a million chickens. So it's only a net benefit when the work can be split up into tiny parallel chunks and then recombined with near perfect efficiently.
  - latchkey 3y ago
    > So it's only a net benefit when the work can be split up into tiny parallel chunks and then recombined with near perfect efficiently. Hasn't that pretty much always been the case? One thing we are seeing more and more of is composable fabrics where the PCIe bus is effectively being extended outside the case such that you log into a single instance, and instead of seeing just 8 AIA's, you now see 32+. This makes the coordination a lot easier.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      I don't know how you keep rewording simple things everyone knows and are being patiently explained to you, as if you are encountering them the first time in the thread.
      - latchkey 3y ago
        Which composable fabric am I talking about then?
        refulgentis 3y ago
        >> So it's only a net benefit when the work can be split up into tiny parallel chunks and then recombined with near perfect efficiently. > Hasn't that pretty much always been the case? I was talking about that, the fabric stuff is a non-sequitor, random hardware, doesn't make GPUs 2x in speed every 18 months, much less lead to a shift in everyday computing loads to GPUs. 1. Moore's Law also applies to GPUs. 2. If we could make use of 1000 cores for anything but long tail tasks, ye average CPU would have a lot more than 8 cores by now. That's what the million chickens thing is about. You can give me ultra-unobtianium fabric for "AIAs", it doesn't matter unless I have a algorithm that's massively parallelizable.
        latchkey 3y ago
        You seem stuck on the Moore's law of things and I've moved past that. To be clear, I was responding to this from the OP above: "and the coordination overhead increases exponentially too" Cross node coordination is complicated and more easily managed with composable fabrics, which is why I brought it up. -- I went back and read a bunch of your older comments here. At first, I thought it was personal but the tone that you use with me is carried across many comments that you've made to others. These also tend to be heavily downvoted. I went and looked you up a bit more, it seems you had an exit to Google and then worked there for a number of years. There is something about how you're communicating that seems brilliant, but at the same time, is missing some level of EQ. Like you're super smart, but also have some sort of ego about it all. As if you feel a deep need to somehow prove yourself as being "better" than the people around you. Saying things like this: "as if you are encountering them the first time in the thread"... is honestly, just rude. My goal here is to help educate and discuss things as best as I know how. If that isn't good enough for you, honestly, just keep it to yourself. Unlike you, I'm not putting my ego into it. If you have a personal problem with me or my background or what I'm saying, my suggestion would be to stick with the technicals and leave the ego at the door. Feel free to say whatever you want, but I won't respond to you any further.