Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #2685
| From | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: fast arithmetic hardware, was These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations |
| Date | 2021-07-16 16:22 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <21-07-018@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | <21-07-004@comp.compilers> <21-07-006@comp.compilers> <21-07-014@comp.compilers> |
On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 23:49:55 -0700 (PDT), gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> wrote: >There is pretty much a continuous change, as processors get faster, >then less efficient processing makes more sense. >Among others, less efficient, interpreted languages have become >more popular. > >It is interesting, though. For much of the 1990's, faster and faster >processor became available for compute intensive applications like >computational physics, but mostly driven by demand from other uses. > >Some of that was people who bought faster processors because they >could, and some by gaming. For the most part, processors haven't been >built for compute intensive use from about the 1990's. > >In the 1980's, there were some coprocessor to speed up compute intensive >problems, such as FPS (Floating Point Systems). But as desktop computers, >and especially x86 machines, got faster there was less need for them. > >And then GPUs to speed up graphics, mostly for games, but then compute >intensive users found that they could use them, too. Except that most are only >single precision. But processors /aren't/ getting faster (much) anymore - they're near the limits both of feature size reduction and of ability to dissipate heat. The wires and insulators now are just a few atoms thick, and since there are insulators /inside/ transistors, the transistors themselves can't get much smaller [they can change shape, which is how things are progressing currently]. Modern CPUs live in a perpetual state of "rolling blackout" in which functional units are turned on and off, cycle by cycle, as needed. This is /NOT/ done for "green" minded energy conservation [that's just self serving PR by the manufacturers] - it's /necessary/ to prevent the chips from burning up. And GPUs are /very/ slow relative to CPUs. The only reason they seem to perform well is because the problems they target are embarrassingly parallel. Try solving a problem that requires lots of array reduction steps and you'll see your performance go straight into the toilet. [Yes, I know that there are tree methods for parallelizing reductions ... they are not always straightforward to implement, and they only work for /some/ reduction problems.] I have worked with Connection Machines (CM-2), DSPs, FPGAs, and I have written a lot of SIMD code for image and array processing tasks. I am well aware of what is possible using various styles of parallel processing. There's a lot that can be done ... and a lot /more/ that can't: the vast majority of all computing problems do not have any known parallel solutions. It's true that there is a lot of instruction level (micro-thread) parallelism available in most programs. It is dificult to exploit with current hardware. This is a topic frequently discussed in comp.arch. YMMV, George
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations versus other, non-arithmetic computations? Roger L Costello <costello@mitre.org> - 2021-07-14 18:30 +0000
Re: These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations versus other, non-arithmetic computations? gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-15 02:31 -0700
Re: These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations versus other, non-arithmetic computations? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2021-07-15 22:02 +0200
Re: These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations versus other, non-arithmetic computations? "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2021-07-16 14:47 +1000
Re: fast arithmetic hardware, was These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-15 23:49 -0700
Re: fast arithmetic hardware, was These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2021-07-16 16:22 -0400
Re: These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations versus other, non-arithmetic computations? "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> - 2021-07-16 15:12 +1000
Re: ancient floating point, These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-07-16 18:31 +0200
Re: ancient floating point, These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2021-07-17 23:14 +0200
Re: These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations versus other, non-arithmetic computations? Derek Jones <derek@NOSPAM-knosof.co.uk> - 2021-07-19 15:35 +0100
Re: These days what percentage of a CPU's work involves doing arithmetic computations versus other, non-arithmetic computations? "minf...@arcor.de" <minforth@arcor.de> - 2021-07-27 14:07 -0700
csiph-web