3 ms·
5nm can hold roughly a gigabyte of SRAM on a cpu-sized die, that's around $130/GB I believe. At some point 5nm will be cheap enough that we can start considerin
by Salgat 2y ago
5nm can hold roughly a gigabyte of SRAM on a cpu-sized die, that's around $130/GB I believe. At some point 5nm will be cheap enough that we can start considering replacing DRAM with SRAM directly on the chip (aka L4 cache). I wonder how big of a latency and bandwidth bonus that'd be. You could even go for a larger node size without losing much capacity for half the price.
- bgnn 2y ago5nm will never be that cheap. The performance benefit would be easily 2x or more though.
- Salgat 2y agoEven 15 years from now?
- crest 2y agoSRAM also requires more power than DRAM and the simple regular structure of SRAM arrays compared to (other) logic makes it possible to get good yield rates through redundancy and error correction codes so you could have giant monolithic dies, but information can't exceed the speed of light in a medium. There just isn't enough time for the signals to propagate to get the latency you expect of a L3 cache out of gigabytes (in relative terms) far away big dies containing gigabytes of SRAM. Also moving that the data would to perform computations without caching would be terrible wasteful given how much energy is needed just to move the data. Instead you would probably end up with something closer to the computing memory concept to map computation to ALUs close to the data with an at least two tier network (on-die, inter-die) to support reductions.
- Salgat 2y agoOh yeah this would definitely be something like L4 cache rather than L3 like AMD's X3D cpus. The expectation is as an alternative to DRAM (or as a supplement), kind of like what Xeon Phi did.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]