Intel Says Moore's Law Depends on Increasing Efficiency

Status
Not open for further replies.

JeTJL

Distinguished
Oct 8, 2011
85
0
18,630
0
It does look to seem that way, especially with all these really efficient Arm Processors, Intel with 3D trigate, as well as AMD using the clock mesh tech in the new Piledriver cpus. Another revision of Moors Law Perhaps?

[citation][nom]rangas[/nom]yeah but at what cost for the consumer...[/citation]
At a lower cost to consumers, the die shrinks are helping a bit with a higher volume of processors, it may cost more to check each of these new chips out, but on the power consumption side we're also saving money too.
 

slicedtoad

Distinguished
Mar 29, 2011
1,034
0
19,360
44
two years ago i'd have thought: "idiot's who needs efficiency?, just use a bigger psu and cooler".

But... sandy bridge showed what excellent efficiency results in.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
The next 10 years will be interesting to say the least. In the '80s to mid '90s we saw computers go from useless to useful (which IBM won), then the mid '90s and '00s we saw the GHz race trying to get the most clock without burning up a CPU (which AMD won), now we are seeing the die shrink race trying to minimize the electrical movement and current used (which Intel is winning). Within 10 years I think next we will see the use of new materials and better layout designs (more SOC style design where the NB/SB/GPU/wifi are all part of the CPU, and the mobo will merely have a CPU and 'feature chip'/BIOS/UEFI), followed by stacked design and aggressive instruction set changes to remove the traditional uses of the NB and SB. After that I think we will see things move away from binary (on to trinary or even base 8 as a form of data compression), and really exotic design like those light based chips we hear about from time to time. All we know for sure is that the future will be pretty damn cool and I will eagerly await my terahertz computer that runs on 20W :)
 

cirdecus

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2008
656
2
19,165
66
As far as moving away from binary computing, its going to be a while. It won't be an evolution of the computer, it will be a completely new invention. Since its creation, the computer has been based on electricity, which has only 2 states: On and Off. A computer can only do two things: Either pass current or not. All of our glorious technology and computing devices, in our cars, homes, businesses, refrigerators, etc are all based off of electricity. As long as the hardware is based on electricity, we're going to be using binary systems/Base 2.

If we ever were to move from Base 2 or Binary, it wouldn't be a new computer, it would be an entirely new creation and the computer would cease to exist. We would move from electricity to another element that would have more than 2 states. Light can have multiple waves of color which could lead to some exciting new invention, but ultimately, finding something other than electricity would bring us into a completely new automated computing age.
 

eklerus

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
82
0
18,640
4
/start program
/execute logical idea
/ modify your core program to reach a answer
/if everything fails be afraid of GOD

no more skynet
 

yumri4

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2012
40
0
18,540
1
On the article i will be glad if Intel, AMD, VIA, IBM, MIT, and/or any other CPU maker can make a chip with integrated encryption instruction sets for AES and MD5, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth while keeping a GPU on die as that will be the best CPU design for the feature hitting most if not all markets with the design. Even though Intel and AMD are the big 2 in CPU designs and get others for the fab of them.
@caedenv yeah but if you have a terahertz computer right now anyways a avg person doesn't need anything above 2.5GHz so why make a 1 terhertz CPU when the vast majority of the market will see little to no difference but the cost? same with the number of cores which right now in consumer CPUs AMD is doing better but in sever CPUs Intel is doing better with their 20-core CPU but with that most things only use 2 cores but some games might use 4 but when you get to AV editing and CAD then the higher core count matters but most do not do any of that.

@Cirdecus i really do not see us moving away from binary any time soon anyways as even if we have a light singel based computer it will most likely still be a binary based computer just a lot faster but if we do get away from the base of 2 what would we hypothetically go to instead?
 

fazers_on_stun

Splendid
Aug 31, 2006
4,743
0
22,860
42
[citation][nom]Cirdecus[/nom]As far as moving away from binary computing, its going to be a while. It won't be an evolution of the computer, it will be a completely new invention. Since its creation, the computer has been based on electricity, which has only 2 states: On and Off. A computer can only do two things: Either pass current or not. All of our glorious technology and computing devices, in our cars, homes, businesses, refrigerators, etc are all based off of electricity. As long as the hardware is based on electricity, we're going to be using binary systems/Base 2.If we ever were to move from Base 2 or Binary, it wouldn't be a new computer, it would be an entirely new creation and the computer would cease to exist. We would move from electricity to another element that would have more than 2 states. Light can have multiple waves of color which could lead to some exciting new invention, but ultimately, finding something other than electricity would bring us into a completely new automated computing age.[/citation]

Trinary (3 active states) logic has been around for decades, just never extensively used for general purpose computing due to the design tools, fabs etc being optimized for binary. In fact, there was some research done showing that the optimal 'n-state' logic (most computational efficiency per transistor) is base-e (2.718, or Euler's constant). Since we cannot yet implement partial logic states, the closest to that number is 3, or trinary logic.
 

lamorpa

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2008
1,195
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]yeah but when?[/citation]
You may find some answers to this question in an article titled, "Intel Says Moore's Law Depends on Increasing Efficiency" which you can find 8 inches above where you posted your comment.
 

lamorpa

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2008
1,195
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]Cirdecus[/nom]Since its creation, the computer has been based on electricity, which has only 2 states: On and Off. A computer can only do two things: Either pass current or not. [/citation]
Hilarius. The most fundamentally idiotic comment of the week! I'm still not sure if this is a joke comment or not.
 

lamorpa

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2008
1,195
0
19,280
0
Since creation, the puter has be base on that lectric, witch has only 2 straits: wax on n wax off. A puter only do two things: Either Ralph Macchio or Mr. Miyagi. All of our inglorious techo and putings, in r trucks, sheds, frigerators, shotguns, etc all be base of that lectric. As long as the puters is based on that lectric, we're going to be using flynary system/2 chopstick.
 

Pherule

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2010
591
0
19,010
8
Can you imagine transfer rates on a Trinary or 8 base system? I thought up the idea of an 8 base a long time ago myself, and nobody seemed interested. I guess some people will always be trapped in history, never wanting to make progress.

You could probably download a 1 "GB" file in 1 second on dial up, using 8 base. Delicious.
 

rosen380

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2011
422
0
18,780
0
"You could probably download a 1 "GB" file in 1 second on dial up, using 8 base. Delicious."

Three base-2 bits can represent eight states, just like one base-8 bit. Assuming that the computer can process a base-8 bit as fast as a base-2 bit, then I'd think we're talking about a 3x improvement in performance, not a ~20000x improvement that you are suggesting with your example.

Since I'm pretty sure the cpu will need more time to process one base-8 bit than one base-2 bit, I doubt that 3x increase would ever be seen...
 

lamorpa

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2008
1,195
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]Pherule[/nom]Can you imagine transfer rates on a Trinary or 8 base system? I thought up the idea of an 8 base a long time ago myself, and nobody seemed interested. I guess some people will always be trapped in history, never wanting to make progress.You could probably download a 1 "GB" file in 1 second on dial up, using 8 base. Delicious.[/citation]
You actually have no idea how deep your fundamental misunderstanding of this topic is. "thought up the idea of an 8 base"! "dial up, using 8 base" Classic! This might be better than the "electricity has only 2 states" guy.
 

PreferLinux

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2010
1,023
0
19,460
65
[citation][nom]Cirdecus[/nom]As far as moving away from binary computing, its going to be a while. It won't be an evolution of the computer, it will be a completely new invention. Since its creation, the computer has been based on electricity, which has only 2 states: On and Off. A computer can only do two things: Either pass current or not. All of our glorious technology and computing devices, in our cars, homes, businesses, refrigerators, etc are all based off of electricity. As long as the hardware is based on electricity, we're going to be using binary systems/Base 2.If we ever were to move from Base 2 or Binary, it wouldn't be a new computer, it would be an entirely new creation and the computer would cease to exist. We would move from electricity to another element that would have more than 2 states. Light can have multiple waves of color which could lead to some exciting new invention, but ultimately, finding something other than electricity would bring us into a completely new automated computing age.[/citation]
Have you ever used a stereo? Or what about a computer monitor? Or a microwave or electric stove? What about hot water from an electric cylinder? All of them use electricity, and far more than two states – most of them use it with continuous variation, and the computer monitor will have at least 64 levels/states for each sub-pixel.
 

eddieroolz

Splendid
Moderator
This theme has been quite obvious from even years ago, especially with Tom's articles. Whereas people were hell bent on achieving the highest possible clocks in the 90's and early 2000's we are now pursuing to improve our efficiency.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]I read more intelligent and self-aware and my mind went straight to skynet.[/citation]

Yea, I stopped reading at "self-aware", went down into my basement bunker, checked the expiration dates of the canned beans, and re-oiled the RPG launcher. When I got back to my computer, I turned up User Account Controls to MAX. Windows ain't gonna do shit without my authorization!
 

madjimms

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2011
448
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]eklerus[/nom]/start program/execute logical idea / modify your core program to reach a answer/if everything fails be afraid of GODno more skynet[/citation]
You mean that mythical deity people used to worship?
 
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Hilarius. The most fundamentally idiotic comment of the week! I'm still not sure if this is a joke comment or not.[/citation]

Couldn't different voltages/currents be counted as different states, and/or positive/negative be counted as different states? I have to agree with you, that was a fairly uninformed comment by Cirdecus.
 

robojox

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2012
13
0
18,510
0
As usual we have to tell Intel how to fix there problems because they are over paid bozos who ride R&D and universities.

How to keep moores law going? They need to change the shape of 2d silicon waffers and we need bath tub type shaped cpus.
What crazy? No we can have E shapped too. Just get out of the 2d cpu designs.
There you have i. I just rescued the whole Intel. The idiots earn millions.
The executives at all corporations are over paid bozos. Regulate executive income.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]The next 10 years will be interesting to say the least. In the '80s to mid '90s we saw computers go from useless to useful (which IBM won), then the mid '90s and '00s we saw the GHz race trying to get the most clock without burning up a CPU (which AMD won), now we are seeing the die shrink race trying to minimize the electrical movement and current used (which Intel is winning). Within 10 years I think next we will see the use of new materials and better layout designs (more SOC style design where the NB/SB/GPU/wifi are all part of the CPU, and the mobo will merely have a CPU and 'feature chip'/BIOS/UEFI), followed by stacked design and aggressive instruction set changes to remove the traditional uses of the NB and SB. After that I think we will see things move away from binary (on to trinary or even base 8 as a form of data compression), and really exotic design like those light based chips we hear about from time to time. All we know for sure is that the future will be pretty damn cool and I will eagerly await my terahertz computer that runs on 20W[/citation]

i would love to believe that for a desktop SoC will never take off... we are getting to a point of deminishing returns from the gpu side and to some extent from the cpu side too (unless we see a massive leap forward, consumer level computer use cant tell the difference between a probably a bulldozer or a 6 core sandybridge.) i like the idea that if i ever need more of something, i can get it... like if i need more ram, i could buy more, want better gpu, i got it, need to upgrade to new wifi standard, easy.

[citation][nom]rosen380[/nom]"You could probably download a 1 "GB" file in 1 second on dial up, using 8 base. Delicious."Three base-2 bits can represent eight states, just like one base-8 bit. Assuming that the computer can process a base-8 bit as fast as a base-2 bit, then I'd think we're talking about a 3x improvement in performance, not a ~20000x improvement that you are suggesting with your example. Since I'm pretty sure the cpu will need more time to process one base-8 bit than one base-2 bit, I doubt that 3x increase would ever be seen...[/citation]
my understanding isnt quite good on this, but from what i undersand base 2 is a 1 or a 0, and base 8 is 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 7.

now lets assume 1 line
base 2 has 2
while base 8 has 8
lets assume a second line...
base 2 now has 4
base 8 now has 64
lets now assume 10
base 2 has 1024
base 8 has 1073741824

base 2, to hold the same amount of information, would need 30 lines,

from what i'm gathering, for every one line of base 8, base 2 would need 3 lines to come up with the same information, if the data can be processed the same way, and just as fast, it would make crap go 3 times faster.

again the concept may just be going way over my head though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS