Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Compute

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby davep » Tue 21 Jul 2015, 13:30:56

pstarr wrote:Dolan, massively parallel computing is so 90's.


Err, the Hadoop ecosystem seems to be doing quite well.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby ennui2 » Tue 21 Jul 2015, 14:33:21

pstarr wrote:Dolan, massively parallel computing is so 90's. Anybody remember 3D Nintendos?Now that selfies have reached the pinnacle of future computing, the Genius Companies are left with intellectual property. Who owns the cnt-c? That's the big question these days. Microsoft and Apple are in a death-match over FN ScrLK and PrtSc.


Don't knock the profit-potential of intellectual property.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 21 Jul 2015, 19:39:05

dolanbaker wrote:But nothing that can't be sorted out with a bit of decent code.
Peak Compute is when the rate of software bloat exceeds the increase in computing power.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby PEAKINT » Tue 21 Jul 2015, 20:26:52

Keith_McClary wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:But nothing that can't be sorted out with a bit of decent code.
Peak Compute is when the rate of software bloat exceeds the increase in computing power.



This just in...

Intel throwing in the towel!

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ ... w-falters/
PEAKINT
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri 10 Jul 2015, 20:21:51

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 21 Jul 2015, 21:47:28

PEAKINT wrote:Not to rain on anyone's party, but we have already peaked technologically. Moore's law died at 28nm
That article is over a year old and it's predictions did not come true. Intel continued to increase performance per watt while at the same time lowering cost per transistor. Moore's Law is still alive and well.

Intel 14nm continues to deliver lower cost per transistor. 14nm Intel delivers >2x improvement in performance per watt. Moore's Law continues!
14nm Process Technology: Opening New Horizons

Concerns over the immediate end of Moore’s Law remain overblown and sensationalistic.

Intel is also reporting that they have been able to maintain their desired pace at improving transistor switching speeds and reducing power leakage. Across the entire performance curve the 14nm process offers a continuum of better switching speeds and/or lower leakage compared to Intel’s 22nm process. Here we can see how the last several generations of Intel’s process nodes compare across mobile, laptop, and server performance profiles. All 3 profiles are seeing a roughly linear increase in performance and decrease in active power consumption, which indicates that Intel’s 14nm process is behaving as expected and is offering similar gains as past processes. In this case the 14nm process should deliver a roughly 1.6x increase in performance per watt, just as past processes have too.

Furthermore, these base benefits when coupled with Intel’s customized 14nm process for Core M (Broadwell-Y) and Broadwell’s power optimizations have allowed Intel to more than double their performance per watt as compared to Haswell-Y.

The end result is that while Intel’s cost per transistor is not decreasing as quickly as the area per transistor, the cost is still decreasing and significantly so. Even with the additional wafer costs of the 14nm process, on a cost per transistor basis the 14nm process is still slightly ahead of normal for Intel.

The fact that costs per transistor continue to come down at a steady rate may be par for the course, but that Intel has been able to even maintain par for the course is actually a very significant accomplishment. As the cost of wafers and fabbing have risen over the years there has been concern that transistor costs would plateau, which would lead to chip designers being able to increase their performance but only by increasing prices, as opposed to the past 40 years of cheaper transistors allowing prices to hold steady while performance has increased. So for Intel this is a major point of pride, especially in light of complaints from NVIDIA and others in recent years that their costs on new nodes aren’t scaling nearly as well as they would like.
Intel’s 14nm Technology in Detail

PEAKINT wrote:This just in...

Intel throwing in the towel!

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ ... w-falters/
As if to prove the point about "Concerns over the immediate end of Moore’s Law remain overblown and sensationalistic". Intel pushes back its 10nm technology gets overblown into "Intel is throwing in the towel!" Sensationalist nonsense.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 22 Jul 2015, 01:46:07

No it doesn't pstarr. Read the article carefully. It starts off talking about speed or processing power. Then goes on to elaborate why it is not all about speed, but transistor count:

in 2000 the number of transistors in the CPU numbered 37.5 million, while in 2009 the number went up to an outstanding 904 million; this is why it is more accurate to apply the law to transistors than to speed.


Moore was not making an observation about processor speeds, he was talking about component density in an integrated circuit:

"Moore's law" is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.
Moore's law

Even the article in the OP did not predict the transistor density would stop increasing. Instead, it predicted that cost reductions would stop:

From this point on we will still be able to double the amount of transistors in a single device but not at lower cost. All that we know about the more advanced nodes (22/20nm, 16/14nm, …) indicates that the cost per transistor is not going to be reduced significantly vs. that of 28nm.


This predicted has turned out false:
On a cost per transistor basis the 14nm process is still slightly ahead of normal for Intel. The fact that costs per transistor continue to come down at a steady rate may be par for the course, but that Intel has been able to even maintain par for the course is actually a very significant accomplishment.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby kublikhan » Wed 22 Jul 2015, 02:22:28

Further pstarr, I am not sure you really appreciate just how much faster processors of today are compared to a processor from 10 years ago. Just because the 2 processor's have the same clock speed does NOT mean they are the same speed. A modern cpu at 2.6ghz is much faster than a 10 year old CPU at 2.6 ghz.

Q: Why, for example, would a 2.66 GHz dual-core Core i5 be faster than a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo, which is also dual-core?

A1: The processor requires fewer instruction cycles to execute the same instructions. This can be for a large number of reasons:

1. Large caches mean less time wasted waiting for memory.

2. More execution units means less time waiting to start operating on an instruction.

3. Better branch prediction means less time wasted speculatively executing instructions that never actually need to be executed.

4. Execution unit improvements mean less time waiting for instructions to complete.

5. Shorter pipelines means pipelines fill up faster.

And so on.

A2: The absolute definitive reference is the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer Manuals. Some general differences I see listed in that chapter, going from the Core to the Nehalem/Sandy Bridge microarchitectures are:

* improved branch prediction, quicker recovery from misprediction
* HyperThreading Technology
* integrated memory controller, new cache hirearchy
* faster floating-point exception handling (Sandy Bridge only)
* LEA bandwidth improvement (Sandy Bridge only)
* AVX instruction extensions (Sandy Bridge only)

A3: Designing a processor to deliver high performance is far more than just increasing the clock rate. There are numerous other ways to increase performance, enabled through Moore's law and instrumental to the design of modern processors.

* Pipelines have become longer over the years, enabling higher clock rates. However, among other things, longer pipelines increase the penalty for an incorrect branch prediction, so a pipeline can't be too long. In trying to reach very high clock speeds, the Pentium 4 processor used very long pipelines, up to 31 stages in Prescott. To reduce performance deficits, the processor would try to execute instructions even if they might fail, and would keep trying until they succeeded. This led to very high power consumption and reduced the performance gained from hyper-threading. Newer processors no longer use pipelines this long, especially since clock rate scaling has reached a wall; Haswell uses a pipeline which varies between 14 and 19 stages long, and lower-power architectures use shorter pipelines (Intel Atom Silvermont has 12 to 14 stages).

* The accuracy of branch prediction has improved with more advanced architectures, reducing the frequency of pipeline flushes caused by misprediction and allowing more instructions to be executed concurrently. Considering the length of pipelines in today's processors, this is critical to maintaining high performance.

* With increasing transistor budgets, larger and more effective caches can be embedded in the processor, reducing stalls due to memory access. Memory accesses can require more than 200 cycles to complete on modern systems, so it is important to reduce the need to access main memory as much as possible.

* Newer processors are better able to take advantage of ILP through more advanced superscalar execution logic and "wider" designs that allow more instructions to be decoded and executed concurrently. As noted above, Haswell can execute up to eight instructions at a time. Increasing transistor budgets allow more functional units such as integer ALUs to be included in the processor core. Key data structures used in out-of-order and superscalar execution, such as the reservation station, reorder buffer, and register file, are expanded in newer designs, which allows the processor to search a wider window of instructions to exploit their ILP. This is a major driving force behind performance increases in today's processors.

* More complex instructions are included in newer processors, and an increasing number of applications use these instructions to enhance performance. Improvements in compiler technology enable more effective use of these instructions.

* In addition to the above, greater integration of parts previously external to the CPU such as the northbridge, memory controller, and PCIe lanes reduce I/O and memory latency. This increases throughput by reducing stalls caused by delays in accessing data from other devices.
Why are newer generations of processors faster at the same clock speed?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby ennui2 » Wed 22 Jul 2015, 10:04:33

Pstarr, high-tech isn't your sphere of knowledge and therefore you really should think twice about trying to offer analysis or predictions.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 22 Jul 2015, 13:56:42

ennui2 wrote:Pstarr, high-tech isn't your sphere of knowledge and therefore you really should think twice about trying to offer analysis or predictions.


Digital Computers are great for somethings -- A Police State, FIAT money, and Deskilling

The NSA is training the Moores Youth...highschool kids who are being taught to hack computers. 43 camps this year, expanding to 200 camps. LOL

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/word ... 7#comments

So ennui2, when are you going to use your super duper Intel processor to:

Design a drug...Ans: Nope
Design a EV battery...Ans: Nope
Design a PV cell...Ans: Nope
Design a LFTR...Ans: Nope

Nobody will give you a dime for your digital computer simulations. They were worthless on that Intel Processor 10 years ago and they are worthless today.

The government wasn't kidding when they require pulling rabbits out of the hat like:

"By 2025, the nanotechnology R&D community is challenged to achieve the following:

Create computer chips that are 100 times faster yet consume less power."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/06 ... challenges

Its either the 100 times faster in 10 years computer chip or:

Hyperinflation OR
Gulags

You coding "geniuses" made your bed (getting rid of that dirty industrialism), now pull a rabbit or else.
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby ennui2 » Wed 22 Jul 2015, 16:12:46

StarvingLion wrote:Digital Computers are great for somethings -- A Police State, FIAT money, and Deskilling


And you're using one too. Stop being a hypocrite.

StarvingLion wrote:You coding "geniuses" made your bed (getting rid of that dirty industrialism), now pull a rabbit or else.


I've already got a pet rabbit, thanks.

Your schtick of everything being "bad" is getting old. Why don't you advocate for something instead of just bashing everything and everybody all day? You're a total Oscar the Grouch.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 22 Jul 2015, 16:31:34

Nuclear or Coal or Windmill technology is irrelevant because every person in this "country" owes $600,000 in debt. The old reliables for electricity generation are "bad" because all that is left are ponzi schemes like nat gas and solar. The sudden interest in the environment is just a cover for the simple fact you people are broke, deskilled, and can't afford to rebuild the industrial infrastructure.

But according to the loons in the IT sector, if we just keep buying faster processors and other useless electronic gadgets, the local manufacturing sector will boom. LOL.

Thats why I gave up on you people for the Wood Economy oops I mean Biomass. Thats the future, Biomass, not computers. The hobo in the woods is no more luddite than the fag banker in Brussels driving his BMW. Both depend on wood and palm oil, otherwise the lights go out and the car never leaves the garage.
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby ennui2 » Wed 22 Jul 2015, 22:02:54

StarvingLion wrote:Nuclear or Coal or Windmill technology is irrelevant because every person in this "country" owes $600,000 in debt.


That's funny. I haven't been asked to make payments on it. How is that relevant, exactly?

StarvingLion wrote:The old reliables for electricity generation are "bad" because all that is left are ponzi schemes like nat gas and solar.


As long as NG or solar is EROEI positive, they won't be ponzi schemes. Any corruption in the markets will correct itself and the NG and solar industries will remain.

StarvingLion wrote:you people are broke, deskilled, and can't afford to rebuild the industrial infrastructure.


You people? Then what are you? A talking lion? How are you able to point your finger without including yourself in the same bucket as the rest of us? Are you living on Mars or something?

StarvingLion wrote:But according to the loons in the IT sector, if we just keep buying faster processors and other useless electronic gadgets, the local manufacturing sector will boom. LOL.


What exactly are you trying to prove? I've gone on record to say that the current tech boom is probably a bubble. If there's a lot of job opportunities in my career segment, why shouldn't I take advantage of it while I can? I'm not stupid enough to think that the good times will last forever, considering that I've already lived (and worked) through one dot com bust.

All you ever seem to do is want to find fault in other people and institutions. After a while it gets repetitious and tiring.

StarvingLion wrote:Thats why I gave up on you people for the Wood Economy oops I mean Biomass. Thats the future, Biomass, not computers.


So fine. For some people, unplugging their life, moving to the woods, and owning a huge woodlot might be the best prep. One size doesn't fit all, though, and I don't like it when people chest-beat about their doomer choices in a way that makes it seem like they're snickering at anyone else who isn't going the same direction.

But if you were a 15+ year web developer veteran with oodles of Microsoft stack experience like me, doing that would be a huge waste.

StarvingLion wrote:The hobo in the woods is no more luddite than the fag banker in Brussels driving his BMW. Both depend on wood and palm oil, otherwise the lights go out and the car never leaves the garage.


OK, so you're a homophobe in addition to being obnoxious?

You spend all your time separating groups of people and judging them. Why don't you stop for a moment and get off your high horse and realize how dickish you sound.

I'm sorry I won't join your club of hurling hate towards certain groups. I guess that puts me on your personal sh*t-list which seems to be just about everybody. I don't need you to tell me whether I'm FUBAR or not. You don't know me or how I'm running my life.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 23 Jul 2015, 17:24:25

StarvingLion wrote:Nuclear or Coal or Windmill technology is irrelevant because every person in this "country" owes $600,000 in debt.

Ah, Starving Lion. The patron saint of the innumerate.

Except you're off by a factor of ten.

Whether you search on "US debt per capita" on Google (see the first line on this link):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ernal_debt

or do the math yourself (roughly 320 million times roughly $60,000) = 3.2*10**8 * 6*10**4 = 1.92*10**13 = $19,200,000,000,000 or roughly the US national debt.

I know $600,000 per capita sounds much more alarming, but if you're going to constantly say we're all doomed, using even remotely accurate figures would build a lot more credibility.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby ennui2 » Thu 23 Jul 2015, 17:31:31

pstarr wrote:I am still waiting for you techtopians to project implementation of true natural language processing. Come back to me when Siri can parse this simple string; Time flies like an arrow. into it various permutations.


Why does Siri need to parse that?

The role that agents like this play is basically an automated secretary. Do you recite poetry to a secretary? You issue commands and ask questions that can be easily answered. For that purpose, the current state of NLP works.

Now, if you want an A.I. to function as a true virtual human like in Ex Machina, sure, we're far off from that, but the practical benefits from a machine having that level of A.I. are not that great. If you want the equivalent of automated labor, you don't need much more than robotic intelligence.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Peak Compute

Unread postby ennui2 » Thu 23 Jul 2015, 18:40:59

pstarr wrote:Are you Watson ennui? Otherwise you failed the Turing Test, responding with platitudes, not specifics. 8)


No, I think you've just decided to go off on a tangent to bash Siri for not doing something it wasn't ever designed to be able to do in the first place, in order to make, what kind of point, other than to just bash technology?? Why? Tools are tools. Should a fork be able to work like a knife? Should a plane have to also double as a submarine? You're right in saying that we haven't mastered A.I. That doesn't necessarily mean that current NLP technology has no useful applications.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests

cron