5 ms·

It would be relatively straightforward to build a custom chip for browsing the web that doesn't use memory or hard disk. This sentence really needs a plan to b

It would be relatively straightforward to build a custom chip for browsing the web that doesn't use memory or hard disk. This sentence really needs a plan to back it up. 1) Building a custom chip is not ever straightforward. I say this as someone who has designed ASICs using appropriate high-level tools such as Verilog. 2) I don't understand how one could customize a chip for browsing the web. The modern web is inseparable from JavaScript, which is a general-purpose programming language and thus requires a general-purpose CPU somewhere. At best one could integrate, say, the NIC with the processor, but this is already commonly done. 3) I fail to see how it's possible for a web browser to operate without access to RAM. Page layout involves complex algorithms which are slow. Therefore their output (graphics) must be cached, or else the user would have to wait several seconds to scroll the page. Perhaps the author means to use a very large (tens of megabytes) on-chip cache, suitable for browsing a single web page, but that would inflate the cost of the chip beyond feasibility.

unwind 14y ago
Heh, I came here with the exact same sentence already in the clipboard. I agree ... As far as I know, "browsing the web" with modern expectations is Turing-complete, i.e. it needs a device able to execute general purpose programming. I really wonder what they think they can do to somehow simplify this using a "fixed-function" design. Whatever that is, in this context.
- khitchdee 14y ago
  For the Javascript part, you would need a programmable function block. One option would be not to support Javascript (OK in certain parts of the world). You could organize your chip so that there are several fixed function blocks for things like image decoding, video decoding, text rendering and graphic composition coupled with a programmable function block for the Javascript. The point here being instead of doing all your computation through a program, do only as much as you absolutely have to. The parts that you can hardcode, hardcode to make you chip more green. Web browsing has been given as an example because its a commonly used function and on its own it can justify building a gadget like the Chromebook. So, if you have a narrow function that the gadget is going to be used for, you're better of going full custom than programmable function. I'm doing a more complete analysis of what it would take to build such a chip. I'll publish it when its ready.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    One option would be not to support Javascript (OK in certain parts of the world) Where? So, if you have a narrow function that the gadget is going to be used for, you're better of going full custom than programmable function. How much inefficiency per unit in building small batches of a custom chip, as opposed to many units of a single design, would it take to overcome whatever gains you got when running the device?
    - khitchdee 14y ago
      If you could identify a large population of users that could be serviced with a narrow usage scenario and they agreed to stick with their function for say a year, you could build a viable solution the fixed-function way. For example, in India, PC penetration is only a few percent. Most of the population is completely technology agnostic. If you could identify the top three uses for a computing gadget for say the farmers of India, you could build a fixed function chip at low enough cost and high enough volume for them which would give them some solution instead of no solution because PCs are too expensive or consume too much power. Users such as these would probably not ask to change their gadget for years.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        You can get an ARM system with a 700Mhz CPU, 256MB of RAM, an HD capable GPU and USB support that runs off a 300mA power supply for $25. How low could you realistically get with a custom chip?
        khitchdee 14y ago
        Much lower
        npsimons 14y ago
        And what evidence do you have for this? We aren't talking about off-the-shelf, pennies per chip PICs here. These things would not only have to recoup the design costs (not cheap for this level of complexity), they would be expensive due to the previously mentioned huge caches (basically RAM on chip) and the fact that you really aren't going to get by with web browsing without something Turing complete.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
GregBuchholz 14y ago
Here are some links you might find interesting: Verilog:C :: Bluespec:Haskell http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDRAM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDRAM
- jarel 14y ago
  Maybe it's just me, but I could use some explanatory text along with these links (which I certainly find interesting, but I don't see directly how they relate to what colanderman said).

unwind 14y ago

Heh, I came here with the exact same sentence already in the clipboard. I agree ... As far as I know, "browsing the web" with modern expectations is Turing-complete, i.e. it needs a device able to execute general purpose programming. I really wonder what they think they can do to somehow simplify this using a "fixed-function" design. Whatever that is, in this context.

khitchdee 14y ago
For the Javascript part, you would need a programmable function block. One option would be not to support Javascript (OK in certain parts of the world). You could organize your chip so that there are several fixed function blocks for things like image decoding, video decoding, text rendering and graphic composition coupled with a programmable function block for the Javascript. The point here being instead of doing all your computation through a program, do only as much as you absolutely have to. The parts that you can hardcode, hardcode to make you chip more green. Web browsing has been given as an example because its a commonly used function and on its own it can justify building a gadget like the Chromebook. So, if you have a narrow function that the gadget is going to be used for, you're better of going full custom than programmable function. I'm doing a more complete analysis of what it would take to build such a chip. I'll publish it when its ready.
- icebraining 14y ago
  One option would be not to support Javascript (OK in certain parts of the world) Where? So, if you have a narrow function that the gadget is going to be used for, you're better of going full custom than programmable function. How much inefficiency per unit in building small batches of a custom chip, as opposed to many units of a single design, would it take to overcome whatever gains you got when running the device?
  - khitchdee 14y ago
    If you could identify a large population of users that could be serviced with a narrow usage scenario and they agreed to stick with their function for say a year, you could build a viable solution the fixed-function way. For example, in India, PC penetration is only a few percent. Most of the population is completely technology agnostic. If you could identify the top three uses for a computing gadget for say the farmers of India, you could build a fixed function chip at low enough cost and high enough volume for them which would give them some solution instead of no solution because PCs are too expensive or consume too much power. Users such as these would probably not ask to change their gadget for years.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      You can get an ARM system with a 700Mhz CPU, 256MB of RAM, an HD capable GPU and USB support that runs off a 300mA power supply for $25. How low could you realistically get with a custom chip?
      - khitchdee 14y ago
        Much lower
        npsimons 14y ago
        And what evidence do you have for this? We aren't talking about off-the-shelf, pennies per chip PICs here. These things would not only have to recoup the design costs (not cheap for this level of complexity), they would be expensive due to the previously mentioned huge caches (basically RAM on chip) and the fact that you really aren't going to get by with web browsing without something Turing complete.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

GregBuchholz 14y ago

Here are some links you might find interesting: Verilog:C :: Bluespec:Haskell http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDRAM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDRAM

jarel 14y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I could use some explanatory text along with these links (which I certainly find interesting, but I don't see directly how they relate to what colanderman said).