5 ms·

The Intels of the world are trying to reduce the power consumption of their microprocessor based solutions and therefore claim greenness. The point of this writ

The Intels of the world are trying to reduce the power consumption of their microprocessor based solutions and therefore claim greenness. The point of this write up is to highlight the fact that fundamentally, the microprocessor based architecture is a more general but less green way of achieving a given function. If you can pre-determine what functions your gadget is going to need, you can always build a greener solution by going fixed function.

mikeash 14y ago
Yes, but they're not doing it to optimize power consumption fro web browsing. Web browsing consists of a typically very short burst of work (parsing and rendering) followed by long periods of idleness while the user actually looks at stuff. CPUs power consumption is important when you're using it constantly, but most web browsing doesn't do that.
DougBTX 14y ago
> If you can pre-determine what functions your gadget is going to need, you can always build a greener solution by going fixed function. How are you defining fixed function? For example, does eval [1] count as a function? If you have a gadget which only executes one function, eval, is it still a fixed function device? Presumably it is not, since eval can perform any function. If eval is a function which is not allowed in a fixed function device, how do you determine which functions may be used in a fixed function device? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eval http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eval
- khitchdee 14y ago
  The point of the write-up is to highlight the fact that you don't have to assume programmable function is a better alternative to fixed function under all circumstances, an assumption we have made for the last 40 years.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    That's a claim; for people to consider it a fact you need to demonstrate it.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    The wealth of specialized chips in a modern smartphone, from audio decoding to cell signal handling to graphics acceleration, would seem to belie that supposed assumption.
icebraining 14y ago
If you can pre-determine what functions your gadget is going to need, you can always build a greener solution by going fixed function. No, not always. Designing and producing such solution takes extra energy, both fixed and marginal.
npsimons 14y ago
And by ignoring the whole cradle-to-grave logistics of the situation, you miss that it's not "always" a greener solution. As was mentioned earlier, what happens when a new capability arrives that supplants the old chips? Throw them all out? We already have problems handling the waste from general purpose hardware upgrade cycles! As for power consumption, the GP is correct: screens and radios consume far more power than general purpose CPUs. Not to mention that a simple switch to greener power (solar, wind, hydro) neatly elides the whole problem.
tlb 14y ago
An Intel desktop is a bad strawman to compare against. The thing to beat is an iPad running Safari, which uses around 0.1 watts in the CPU & memory when browsing.

mikeash 14y ago

Yes, but they're not doing it to optimize power consumption fro web browsing. Web browsing consists of a typically very short burst of work (parsing and rendering) followed by long periods of idleness while the user actually looks at stuff. CPUs power consumption is important when you're using it constantly, but most web browsing doesn't do that.

DougBTX 14y ago

> If you can pre-determine what functions your gadget is going to need, you can always build a greener solution by going fixed function. How are you defining fixed function? For example, does eval [1] count as a function? If you have a gadget which only executes one function, eval, is it still a fixed function device? Presumably it is not, since eval can perform any function. If eval is a function which is not allowed in a fixed function device, how do you determine which functions may be used in a fixed function device? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eval http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eval

khitchdee 14y ago
The point of the write-up is to highlight the fact that you don't have to assume programmable function is a better alternative to fixed function under all circumstances, an assumption we have made for the last 40 years.
- icebraining 14y ago
  That's a claim; for people to consider it a fact you need to demonstrate it.
- mikeash 14y ago
  The wealth of specialized chips in a modern smartphone, from audio decoding to cell signal handling to graphics acceleration, would seem to belie that supposed assumption.

icebraining 14y ago

If you can pre-determine what functions your gadget is going to need, you can always build a greener solution by going fixed function. No, not always. Designing and producing such solution takes extra energy, both fixed and marginal.

npsimons 14y ago

And by ignoring the whole cradle-to-grave logistics of the situation, you miss that it's not "always" a greener solution. As was mentioned earlier, what happens when a new capability arrives that supplants the old chips? Throw them all out? We already have problems handling the waste from general purpose hardware upgrade cycles! As for power consumption, the GP is correct: screens and radios consume far more power than general purpose CPUs. Not to mention that a simple switch to greener power (solar, wind, hydro) neatly elides the whole problem.

tlb 14y ago

An Intel desktop is a bad strawman to compare against. The thing to beat is an iPad running Safari, which uses around 0.1 watts in the CPU & memory when browsing.