3 ms·

Servethehome[1] does a bit of a better job describing what maverick-2 is and why it makes sense. [1]https://www.servethehome.com/nextsilicon-maverick-2-brings-

by cpard 1y ago

Servethehome[1] does a bit of a better job describing what maverick-2 is and why it makes sense. [1]https://www.servethehome.com/nextsilicon-maverick-2-brings-dataflow-and-hbm3e-to-hpc-customers/ https://www.servethehome.com/nextsilicon-maverick-2-brings-d...

phkahler 1y ago
Thats a fairly specialized chip and requires a bunch of custom software. The only way it can run apps unmodified is if the math libraries have been customized for this chip. If the performance is there, people will buy it. For a minute I thought maybe it was Risc-V with a big vector unit, but its way different from that.
- stogot 1y ago
  The quote at the end of the posted Reuters article (not the one you’re responding to) says that it doesn’t require extensive code modifications. So is the “custom software” is standard for the target customers of nextsilicon?
  - jll29 1y ago
    Companies often downplay the amount of software modifications necessary to benefit from their hardware platform's strengths because quite often, platforms that cannot run software out of the box lose out compared to those that can. By the time special chips were completed and mature, the developers of "mainstream" CPUs had typically caught up speedwise in the past, which is why we do not see any "transputers" (e.g. Inmos T800), LISP machines (Symbolics XL1200, TI Explorer II), or other odd architectures like the Connection Machine CM-2 around anymore. For example, when Richard Feynman was hired to work on the Connection Machine, he had to write a parallel version of BASIC first before he could write any programs for the computer they were selling: https://longnow.org/ideas/richard-feynman-and-the-connection-machine/ https://longnow.org/ideas/richard-feynman-and-the-connection... This may also explain failures like Bristol-based CPU startup Graphcore, which was acquired by Softbank, but for less money than the investors had put in: https://sifted.eu/articles/graphcore-cofounder-exits-company-one-year-on-from-softbank-acquisition https://sifted.eu/articles/graphcore-cofounder-exits-company...
    - lukeh 1y ago
      XMOS (spiritual successor to Inmos) is still kicking around, it’s not without its challenges though, for the reasons you mention.
  - c0balt 1y ago
    It's a bit more complicated, you need to use their compiler (LVVM fork with clang+fortran). This in itself is not that special as most accelerators (ICC, nvcc, aoc) already require this. Modifications are likely on the level of: Does this clang support my required c++ version? Actual work is only required when you want to bring something else, like Rust (AFAIK not supported). However, to analyze the efficiency of the code and how it is interpreted by the card you need their special toolchain. Debugging also becomes less convenient.
  - phkahler 1y ago
    >> says that it doesn’t require extensive code modifications If they provide a compiler port and update things like BLAS to support their hardware then higher level applications should not require much/any code modification.
- ac29 1y ago
  The article says they are also developing a RISCV CPU
klooney 1y ago
They've got a "Mill Core" in there- is the design related to the Mill Computing design?
- jecel 1y ago
  They are completely different designs, but the name is inspired by the same source: the Mill component in Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine.
- damageboy 1y ago
  Yeah, it's an unfortunate overlap. The Mill-Core in NextSilicon terminology is the software defined "configuration" of the chip so to speak that represents swaths of the application that are deemed worthy of acceleration as expressed on the custom HW. So really the Mill-Core is in a way the expression of the customer's code. really.
maratc 1y ago
I've also found their "Technology Launch" video[1] that goes somewhat deeper into the details (they also have code examples.) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krpunC3itSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krpunC3itSM

by cpard 1y ago

phkahler 1y ago

Thats a fairly specialized chip and requires a bunch of custom software. The only way it can run apps unmodified is if the math libraries have been customized for this chip. If the performance is there, people will buy it. For a minute I thought maybe it was Risc-V with a big vector unit, but its way different from that.

stogot 1y ago
The quote at the end of the posted Reuters article (not the one you’re responding to) says that it doesn’t require extensive code modifications. So is the “custom software” is standard for the target customers of nextsilicon?
- jll29 1y ago
  Companies often downplay the amount of software modifications necessary to benefit from their hardware platform's strengths because quite often, platforms that cannot run software out of the box lose out compared to those that can. By the time special chips were completed and mature, the developers of "mainstream" CPUs had typically caught up speedwise in the past, which is why we do not see any "transputers" (e.g. Inmos T800), LISP machines (Symbolics XL1200, TI Explorer II), or other odd architectures like the Connection Machine CM-2 around anymore. For example, when Richard Feynman was hired to work on the Connection Machine, he had to write a parallel version of BASIC first before he could write any programs for the computer they were selling: https://longnow.org/ideas/richard-feynman-and-the-connection-machine/ https://longnow.org/ideas/richard-feynman-and-the-connection... This may also explain failures like Bristol-based CPU startup Graphcore, which was acquired by Softbank, but for less money than the investors had put in: https://sifted.eu/articles/graphcore-cofounder-exits-company-one-year-on-from-softbank-acquisition https://sifted.eu/articles/graphcore-cofounder-exits-company...
  - lukeh 1y ago
    XMOS (spiritual successor to Inmos) is still kicking around, it’s not without its challenges though, for the reasons you mention.
- c0balt 1y ago
  It's a bit more complicated, you need to use their compiler (LVVM fork with clang+fortran). This in itself is not that special as most accelerators (ICC, nvcc, aoc) already require this. Modifications are likely on the level of: Does this clang support my required c++ version? Actual work is only required when you want to bring something else, like Rust (AFAIK not supported). However, to analyze the efficiency of the code and how it is interpreted by the card you need their special toolchain. Debugging also becomes less convenient.
- phkahler 1y ago
  >> says that it doesn’t require extensive code modifications If they provide a compiler port and update things like BLAS to support their hardware then higher level applications should not require much/any code modification.
ac29 1y ago
The article says they are also developing a RISCV CPU

klooney 1y ago

They've got a "Mill Core" in there- is the design related to the Mill Computing design?

jecel 1y ago
They are completely different designs, but the name is inspired by the same source: the Mill component in Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine.
damageboy 1y ago
Yeah, it's an unfortunate overlap. The Mill-Core in NextSilicon terminology is the software defined "configuration" of the chip so to speak that represents swaths of the application that are deemed worthy of acceleration as expressed on the custom HW. So really the Mill-Core is in a way the expression of the customer's code. really.

maratc 1y ago

I've also found their "Technology Launch" video[1] that goes somewhat deeper into the details (they also have code examples.) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krpunC3itSM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krpunC3itSM