Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 11:42 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 14:55 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 12:13 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 17:59 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-30 13:50 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-02 23:53 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-03 19:10 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 07:41 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 20:22 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 08:39 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 07:51 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 14:05 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 09:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 19:23 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 00:41 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 15:43 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 21:14 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 17:58 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-04 13:40 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 21:34 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-04 09:49 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-10 00:10 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 16:42 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 14:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:02 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:34 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:53 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 16:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 17:00 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:54 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-11 19:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 23:52 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-13 07:56 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 15:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:29 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 14:14 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 21:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 15:26 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 02:21 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 19:40 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:07 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 22:12 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 18:38 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 23:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-30 11:47 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-02 00:19 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-02 16:06 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-06 03:14 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-30 16:34 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-01 01:27 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-01 16:57 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-02 16:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 02:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-05 00:39 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-06 18:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-02 19:23 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-09-30 17:05 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:26 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-05 19:45 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-04 13:22 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-10-06 02:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 01:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:56 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 21:05 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:40 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 23:16 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 00:19 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-09 09:59 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:46 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2012-10-10 07:29 +1100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 17:11 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:11 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 20:46 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 14:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 00:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-13 20:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 17:36 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:34 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <76fe0697-97b3-4844-9b18-b2b86e028d8c@googlegroups.com> |
Posted 16 hours ago. Time to get into the ARM world; IMHO. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/09/99-raspberry-pi-sized-supercomputer-touted-in-kickstarter-project/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-28 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a34f030b-63ba-4753-8a48-869dfee506f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15795 |
Doesn't sound too bad. I have written some Java code for a soft implementation of a DSP core with 1KB memory. I wonder if this idea is extended with some memory exchange interconnect using a time division multiplex bus an external co-ordination processor using the memory, could calculate the TDM flux, and then build the correct software in each 1KB cell. With 1GB memory sticks common, this is 1M * 20 cycle processors as an estimate. Neural net simulation? I assume silicon density can exceed neuron density by quite a margin. https://github.com/jackokring/jarvar/blob/master/jarvar-base/src/uk/co/peopleandroid/jarvar/internals/SoftDSP.java Cheers Jacko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-28 10:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <ef3c731e-e4a7-423b-8de8-3eec13caef94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15801 |
Sky Net is upon us...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-28 11:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) |
| Message-ID | <1677708b-c824-4476-8480-5dba1e90a1e9@hj1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15801 |
On Sep 28, 6:44 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't sound too bad. I have written some Java code for a soft implementation of a DSP core with 1KB memory. I wonder if this idea is extended with some memory exchange interconnect using a time division multiplex bus an external co-ordination processor using the memory, could calculate the TDM flux, and then build the correct software in each 1KB cell. With 1GB memory sticks common, this is 1M * 20 cycle processors as an estimate. Neural net simulation? I assume silicon density can exceed neuron density by quite a margin.
>
> https://github.com/jackokring/jarvar/blob/master/jarvar-base/src/uk/c...
>
> Cheers Jacko
It's shared memory with up to 128K per node.
Complete multicore solution featuring a high performance
microprocessor ISA, Network-On-Chip, and distributed memory system
Fully-featured ANSI-C programmable GNU/Eclipse based tool chain
Scalable to 1000’s of cores and TFLOPS of performance on a single
chip
1GHz superscalar RISC processor cores
IEEE Floating Point Instruction Set
Shared memory architecture with up to 128KB memory at each
processor node
Zero startup-cost messaging passing
Vector Interrupt Controller
Distributed Multicore Multidimensional DMAs
32 GB/sec local memory bandwidth per core
8GB/sec per processor network bandwidth
72 GFLOPS/Watt energy efficiency
Processor tile size of 0.5mm^2 at 65nm, 0.128mm^2 at 28nm
From http://www.adapteva.com/products/epiphany-ip/epiphany-architecture-ip/
Awesome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-28 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <959f4162-731d-4f94-b53a-86f14da4b686@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15795 |
On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:16:25 AM UTC-3, B.Person wrote: > Posted 16 hours ago. Time to get into the ARM world; IMHO. The 16 cores are not ARM, though they do talk to an ARM processor. -- Jecel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-28 11:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xwqzekmwk.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #15795 |
"B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> writes: > Posted 16 hours ago. Time to get into the ARM world; IMHO. I looked at that. It looked interesting at first, but meh. I don't think they claimed to have ARM cores on the array chip. They are some unidentified 32-bit risc architecture, maybe ARM, maybe not. (There is an architecture manual but I didn't look at it). The board does have an ARM running Linux and you might be thinking of that. The array chip is a peripheral to the ARM chip, operating as a coprocesssor or accelerator. Basically you are looking at a Raspberry Pi with an external, programmable GPU. The array chip has limited memory and i/o bandwidth, the usual bottleneck of these things. Its total computational performance is nowhere near that of a desktop GPU, though of course its power consumption is much lower, making it perhaps of interest for mobile products. And instead of SIMD, it's a bunch of semi-independent processors sort of like the recently announced Xeon Phi. For the 16-core chip there is 0.5MB of on-chip NUMA ram, I guess 32k "owned" by each core, with lower speed access possible from other cores.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-29 14:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k47g06$ntp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15795 |
"B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> wrote in message news:76fe0697-97b3-4844-9b18-b2b86e028d8c@googlegroups.com... And, another OT thread ... > Posted 16 hours ago. Time to get into the ARM world; IMHO. > Why? a) The project doesn't have any funding, yet. b) There is no markete demand for it, yet. c) It's not being produced by a major semiconductor company, i.e., it's got the "kiss of death" already ... d) It'll require some custom hardware, i.e., an additional expense. e) There is no software for it. > [link to proposed many core ARM] I saw a slightly different link for it: http://hackaday.com/2012/09/28/massively-parallel-64-core-computer-costs-99/ My thoughts when I saw that were: "Just what advantage does this design have over the failed Transputer?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer Not to burst anyone's bubble, but I saw nothing of any merit that would offer this project _any_ chance at real success. They've given themselves a year to produce the 16-core version. That seems a bit unrealistic. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-29 12:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xmx08hcbz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #15815 |
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> writes: > a) The project doesn't have any funding, yet. True, and they may be asking a bit much. > b) There is no markete demand for it, yet. Yeah, they are too hopeful and enamored of their design, it seems to me. > c) It's not being produced by a major semiconductor company, i.e., it's got > the "kiss of death" already ... Meh. Is ARM a "major semiconductor company"? Is Allwinner a major semiconductor company? What about NVidia? Heck, what about Green Arrays? You're at a cost disadvantage by being fabless but it's certainly possible to ship successful products using foundries. > d) It'll require some custom hardware, i.e., an additional expense. Just a Raspberry Pi-like PC board (plus the 64 core cpu if they do that, I thought). > My thoughts when I saw that were: > "Just what advantage does this design have over the failed Transputer?" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer I'm not sure the Transputer failed for technical reasons. Tilera has been making a 64-core(?) cpu for a while, and Intel has announced the Xeon Phi. > They've given themselves a year to produce the 16-core version. That > seems a bit unrealistic. I thought they already had the 16-core silicon, and they were looking to build a board and a 64-core chip. Maybe I'm mistaken about the 16-core silicon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-29 23:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2207084.uDy9Jnq5yQ@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #15817 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> writes: >> a) The project doesn't have any funding, yet. > > True, and they may be asking a bit much. AFAIK they already had a first round of founding for their 16 cores unit, with IIRC $2 million. >> b) There is no markete demand for it, yet. > > Yeah, they are too hopeful and enamored of their design, it seems to > me. Well, whatever startup you have, if you aren't overly hopeful and enamored, it won't go anywhere. You absolutely have to love what you are doing. >> c) It's not being produced by a major semiconductor company, i.e., >> it's got the "kiss of death" already ... > > Meh. Is ARM a "major semiconductor company"? Is Allwinner a major > semiconductor company? What about NVidia? Heck, what about Green > Arrays? You're at a cost disadvantage by being fabless but it's > certainly possible to ship successful products using foundries. A typical Rod Pemberton argument: Completely clueless and hopelessly outdated... There are a few semiconductor companies left like Samsung, TSMC, Intel, IBM, GlobalFoundries, Ti, who can produce the most recent generation of semiconductor process. But as Moore's law has an exponential cost in fabs, they get fewer and fewer. Therefore, fabless is the future. Even AMD is now fabless. The years where they couldn't fill their expensive fabs nearly killed them. >> My thoughts when I saw that were: >> "Just what advantage does this design have over the failed >> Transputer?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transputer > > I'm not sure the Transputer failed for technical reasons. Tilera has > been making a 64-core(?) cpu for a while, and Intel has announced the > Xeon Phi. And all the desktop GPUs are essentially many-core architectures. The transputer failed for being too early. Back then, improving the speed of a single core was still the best way to get more performance - up to about 10 years ago, parallelism wasn't that important. Things have changed since then. Note that this thing we are discussing here has a unified, but non- uniform memory, you communicate by reading and writing remote memories. This is pretty conventional, so people can use it. >> They've given themselves a year to produce the 16-core version. That >> seems a bit unrealistic. > > I thought they already had the 16-core silicon, and they were looking > to build a board and a 64-core chip. Maybe I'm mistaken about the > 16-core silicon. It took him (as this was a one-man-show) 6 weeks to tapeout the 16-core silicon after he got the design software - he did invest 2 years of design time prior to that; probably using FPGA tools to evaluate his stuff. The design is there, all they (they are now more than one man) need to do is to retarget the physical layout to a 28nm process. Shouldn't take too long. The design software of today is really in a much better shape than it used to be. AMD turned away from hand-tuned hand-layouted everything, and their new Steamroller design looks like they are have recovered from that; they are now as good as the pre-Bulldozer hand layout used to be. I'm not sure if this will be a tremendous success. They aren't that much better than a GPGPU, and the GPGPU will be included into devices just because you need a GPU. Current desktop GPUs are already GPGPUs (with OpenCL and alike as language), and the next generation mobile GPUs like Mali 600 will be GPGPUs, too. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-29 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xsja0z70x.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #15818 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> True, and they may be asking a bit much. > AFAIK they already had a first round of founding for their 16 cores > unit, with IIRC $2 million. Making chips is expensive. But once the chip is made, another $750k to make a PC board with off-the-shelf parts around it? Or is it mostly for software porting, or what? >> Yeah, they are too hopeful and enamored of their design, it seems to me. > Well, whatever startup you have, if you aren't overly hopeful and > enamored, it won't go anywhere. You absolutely have to love what you > are doing. It also helps to have concrete evidence that what you're doing fills a need, instead of being a solution looking for a problem. This echoes similar things you've said in the past about the GA chip. > It took him (as this was a one-man-show) 6 weeks to tapeout the 16-core > silicon after he got the design software - he did invest 2 years of > design time prior to that; probably using FPGA tools to evaluate his > stuff. May I ask what is involved in 2 years of something like that? I'm imagining a process like "download a 32-bit RISC core from opencores.org, replicate 16 times, plus add some stuff for the shared memory blocks". > I'm not sure if this will be a tremendous success. They aren't that > much better than a GPGPU, and the GPGPU will be included into devices > just because you need a GPU. Current desktop GPUs are already GPGPUs > (with OpenCL and alike as language), and the next generation mobile GPUs > like Mali 600 will be GPGPUs, too. I think the chip is targeted to mobile phones with little power available. The 16-core part's total commputational performance is lower than today's desktop processors, and even the 64-core is not that much ahead, especially if you count on-chip desktop GPU's. I'd say though that gpgpu's are not so good at algorithms involving lots of conditional branches, so these array thingies probably have uses. The Xeon Phi looks interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-29 17:59 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <vv2dnRdZzq0GXvrNnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15819 |
On 9/29/12 2:30 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>> True, and they may be asking a bit much. >> AFAIK they already had a first round of founding for their 16 cores >> unit, with IIRC $2 million. > > Making chips is expensive. But once the chip is made, another $750k to > make a PC board with off-the-shelf parts around it? Or is it mostly for > software porting, or what? Don't forget marketing. It's expensive, and engineers often fail to appreciate both its expense and its necessity. Over the years I've been involved in many more projects that were marketing failures than technical failures. >>> Yeah, they are too hopeful and enamored of their design, it seems to me. >> Well, whatever startup you have, if you aren't overly hopeful and >> enamored, it won't go anywhere. You absolutely have to love what you >> are doing. > > It also helps to have concrete evidence that what you're doing fills a > need, instead of being a solution looking for a problem. This echoes > similar things you've said in the past about the GA chip. Yes, that's important, and I'm afraid I also agree it's a problem with GA. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-30 13:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <7f64f71d6400cd5cc142ea3ad85f1da6@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #15821 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote: > On 9/29/12 2:30 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > >>> True, and they may be asking a bit much. > >> AFAIK they already had a first round of founding for their 16 cores > >> unit, with IIRC $2 million. > > > > Making chips is expensive. But once the chip is made, another $750k to > > make a PC board with off-the-shelf parts around it? Or is it mostly for > > software porting, or what? > > Don't forget marketing. It's expensive, and engineers often fail to > appreciate both its expense and its necessity. Over the years I've been > involved in many more projects that were marketing failures than > technical failures. If that isn't a good description of Forth I don't know what is!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-02 23:53 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k4eriv$r0e$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15825 |
Anonymous wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/29/12 2:30 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
> > >>> True, and they may be asking a bit much.
> > >> AFAIK they already had a first round of founding for their 16 cores
> > >> unit, with IIRC $2 million.
> > >
> > > Making chips is expensive. But once the chip is made, another $750k to
> > > make a PC board with off-the-shelf parts around it? Or is it mostly for
> > > software porting, or what?
> >
> > Don't forget marketing. It's expensive, and engineers often fail to
> > appreciate both its expense and its necessity. Over the years I've been
> > involved in many more projects that were marketing failures than
> > technical failures.
>
> If that isn't a good description of Forth I don't know what is!
Which - a technical or marketing failure? :)
Paul's observation applies equally to Forth:
"It also helps to have concrete evidence that what you're doing
fills a need, instead of being a solution looking for a problem."
Marketing generates initial interest. For it to be sustainable there
must be ongoing need. How many programming languages does
the world need to sustain in any given era? Not that many.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-03 19:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <923e0c628f2cd64d742acdea342c91e8@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> |
| In reply to | #15859 |
"Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: > Anonymous wrote: > > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote: > > > > > On 9/29/12 2:30 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > > > > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > > > >>> True, and they may be asking a bit much. > > > Don't forget marketing. It's expensive, and engineers often fail to > > > appreciate both its expense and its necessity. Over the years I've been > > > involved in many more projects that were marketing failures than > > > technical failures. > > > > If that isn't a good description of Forth I don't know what is! > > Which - a technical or marketing failure? :) Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get any respect! > Paul's observation applies equally to Forth: > > "It also helps to have concrete evidence that what you're doing > fills a need, instead of being a solution looking for a problem." Aside from talking about it, which is what this newsgroup is and should be about, there are people using Forth or Elizabeth and Stephen probably couldn't afford their internet connections and websites. Without any additional context from your quote, I don't see Forth as a solution looking for a problem. There are many niche tools and domain specific languages that are not popular or widely known, yet they serve a purpose and are in active use. Really, the statement you quoted is troubling not from a Forth point of view, but consider all the graphical crap and web programming that probably make up 99% of all code written today...if that junk isn't a solution looking for a problem I don't know what is. We got business done with text interfaces for many years and I don't see any benefit except for teenagers and H1Bs in reducing programming to flash webpages. Doesn't anybody write code that actually *does* something anymore? > > Marketing generates initial interest. For it to be sustainable there > must be ongoing need. How many programming languages does > the world need to sustain in any given era? Not that many. In theory that seems reasonable. In practice there seems to be no limit to the number of programming languages in use and no end in sight when it comes to creating new ones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-03 07:41 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <EsKdnaBYMbFR5fHNnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15883 |
On 10/3/12 7:10 AM, Fritz Wuehler wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: > >> Anonymous wrote: >>> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote: ... >>>> Don't forget marketing. It's expensive, and engineers often fail to >>>> appreciate both its expense and its necessity. Over the years I've been >>>> involved in many more projects that were marketing failures than >>>> technical failures. >>> >>> If that isn't a good description of Forth I don't know what is! >> >> Which - a technical or marketing failure? :) > > Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a > technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get any > respect! I agree with that. >> Paul's observation applies equally to Forth: >> >> "It also helps to have concrete evidence that what you're doing >> fills a need, instead of being a solution looking for a problem." > > Aside from talking about it, which is what this newsgroup is and should be > about, there are people using Forth or Elizabeth and Stephen probably > couldn't afford their internet connections and websites. Without any > additional context from your quote, I don't see Forth as a solution looking > for a problem. There are many niche tools and domain specific languages that > are not popular or widely known, yet they serve a purpose and are in active > use. Yes, Forth was designed from the ground up to address a particular real-world problem: the need for flexible programming for resource-constrained systems. The fact that it is still in use today, mostly in embedded systems, is a testimony to the fact that it is successful for that purpose, and that the need still exists. In the world of embedded processors, unit costs count a lot, and your ability to do more with whatever resources you have translates to success with your product. The remarkable thing is that Forth has also been successful in environments that are not resource-constrained (e.g. PCs) because of its flexibility and ease of use. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-03 18:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <ad3d4eFm8fpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15885 |
> Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a > technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get any > respect! It's a powerful macro assembler for a stack based machine language. The problem is that it can take your $0.23 problem and do it for $0.17-- a 25% savings! But everybody has pockets stuffed full of $20 bills, so nobody cares. I think Chuck Moore was smart to head towards where the pennies still matter. -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-03 20:22 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <53974477.bJxicJU2s3@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #15886 |
vandys@vsta.org wrote: >> Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a >> technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get >> any respect! > > It's a powerful macro assembler for a stack based machine language. This is the low-level view of Forth. Systems like my b16 cross compiler could fit into that description. You miss the interactive part, and you miss the extensibility part - yes, maybe it's hidden in the word "powerful", but usually, I would describe other macro assemblers as "powerful", too, even though they are neither interactive nor allow me to extend them. > The problem is that it can take your $0.23 problem and do it for > $0.17-- > a 25% savings! But everybody has pockets stuffed full of $20 bills, > so nobody cares. The perception I have of my 512MB 800MHz single core phone is that of a very resource constrained environment - when I run normal Dalvik programs. Of course it isn't a resource constrained environment for a Forth system, it is like heaven - there is plenty of RAM, there is a fast CPU and GPU, etc. But apparently, people programming in Java can make this overengineered thing very slow ang sluggish. I *do* care. I've heard that with 2GB and a 1.6GHz quadcore, Android will feel a lot better. m( -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-04 08:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k4k033$43q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15886 |
On 10/3/2012 2:06 PM, vandys@vsta.org wrote: >> Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a >> technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get any >> respect! > > It's a powerful macro assembler for a stack based machine language. > The problem is that it can take your $0.23 problem and do it for $0.17-- > a 25% savings! But everybody has pockets stuffed full of $20 bills, > so nobody cares. I think Chuck Moore was smart to head towards where > the pennies still matter. And exactly where would that be? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-04 07:51 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <1vCdnRlaMek9UfDNnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15912 |
On 10/4/12 2:39 AM, rickman wrote: > On 10/3/2012 2:06 PM, vandys@vsta.org wrote: >>> Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a >>> technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get >>> any >>> respect! >> >> It's a powerful macro assembler for a stack based machine language. >> The problem is that it can take your $0.23 problem and do it for $0.17-- >> a 25% savings! But everybody has pockets stuffed full of $20 bills, >> so nobody cares. I think Chuck Moore was smart to head towards where >> the pennies still matter. > > And exactly where would that be? In embedded devices that will be used in enormous volumes, such that tiny savings in unit costs are multiplied by volume to the extent that it's worth extra development costs to achieve them, and in applications where good power management can vastly extend the usefulness (and value) of a device. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-04 14:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k4kj57$k2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15919 |
On 10/4/2012 1:51 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 10/4/12 2:39 AM, rickman wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 2:06 PM, vandys@vsta.org wrote:
>>>> Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a
>>>> technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get
>>>> any
>>>> respect!
>>>
>>> It's a powerful macro assembler for a stack based machine language.
>>> The problem is that it can take your $0.23 problem and do it for $0.17--
>>> a 25% savings! But everybody has pockets stuffed full of $20 bills,
>>> so nobody cares. I think Chuck Moore was smart to head towards where
>>> the pennies still matter.
>>
>> And exactly where would that be?
>
> In embedded devices that will be used in enormous volumes, such that
> tiny savings in unit costs are multiplied by volume to the extent that
> it's worth extra development costs to achieve them, and in applications
> where good power management can vastly extend the usefulness (and value)
> of a device.
I asked the question not because I don't understand the concept, but
because I don't see how a $15 CPU chip which requires some $10+ of
supporting chips is a viable contender in the "$0.23" arena. I realize
that number is just a rhetorical figure, but with the current selling
price of the GA144, I don't see it being suited to high volume markets
except perhaps an extremely small niche. I still am asking the question,
Exactly where would that be?
Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web