Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Bets Its Future on a Reprogrammable Computer Chip

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–34 of 34 posts

Re: Microsoft Bets Its Future on a Reprogrammable Computer Chip

#31

Post by emcq »

p1esk wrote: post #30
emcq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPUs have worse performance per watt than a tuned FPGA. Some newer FPGAs can have 400 megabits of on chip RAM - that's huge, significantly larger than the 128-256k cache typically available on chip for a GPU that turns into big energy savings.

GPUs have worse performance per watt than a tuned FPGA Citation needed. Maxwell Jetson TX1 is claimed to achieve 1TFlops FP16 at <10W, and soon to be released Pascal based replacement will probably be even more efficient.

While I dont have any external publications addressing this general claim, this is taken from my current and past experiences with internal studies focused on neural networks implemented on the TX1, other GPU, custom ASICs, and FPGA approaches. In terms of power efficiency it generally goes ASIC > FPGA > GPU > CPU. If you're doing just fp32 BLAS it's hard to beat a GPU, but it turns out many problems have features that you can optimize for.

The TX1 power consumption including DRAM and other subsystems peaks 20-30W. Typical usage is 10-15W if you're running anything useful.

That 1 TFLOP counts a FMA instruction as 2 flops - while accurate and useful for say dot products - for other workloads the throughput will be half of this number.

As an example of an FPGA performing significantly better than the TX1 is DeepPhi [0].

[0] http://www.deephi.com/en/technology/

Re: Microsoft Bets Its Future on a Reprogrammable Computer Chip

#32

Post by p1esk »

emcq wrote: post #31
p1esk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPUs have worse performance per watt than a tuned FPGA Citation needed. Maxwell Jetson TX1 is claimed to achieve 1TFlops FP16 at <10W, and soon to be released Pascal based replacement will probably be even more efficient.

While I dont have any external publications addressing this general claim, this is taken from my current and past experiences with internal studies focused on neural networks implemented on the TX1, other GPU, custom ASICs, and FPGA approaches. In terms of power efficiency it generally goes ASIC > FPGA > GPU > CPU. If you're doing just fp32 BLAS it's hard to beat a GPU, but it turns out many problems have features th…

In that link, where's the comparison of fpga vs TX1?

Re: Microsoft Bets Its Future on a Reprogrammable Computer Chip

#33

Post by emcq »

p1esk wrote: post #32
emcq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I dont have any external publications addressing this general claim, this is taken from my current and past experiences with internal studies focused on neural networks implemented on the TX1, other GPU, custom ASICs, and FPGA approaches. In terms of power efficiency it generally goes ASIC > FPGA > GPU > CPU. If you're doing just fp32 BLAS it's hard to beat a GPU, but it turns out many problems have features th…

In that link, where's the comparison of fpga vs TX1?

If you click on Papers, there is a link to "Going Deeper with Embedded FPGA for Convolutional Neural Network", which compares against the TK1: https://nicsefc.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn/media/publications/2016/F...

While not the TX1 vs FPGA result you want, this is very close. For example they aren't using the latest FPGA or GPU, and are not using TensorRT on the GPU and on the FPGA side they are using fatty 16-bit weights on an older FPGA rather than newer stuff you can do with lower precision (which improves the efficiency of the FPGA having more high speed RAM collocated with computation vs GPU which is primarily off-chip).

If you want to learn more about this stuff, I suggest a presentation by one of Bill Dally's students (chief scientist at NVIDIA): http://on-demand.gputechconf.com/gtc/2016/presentation/s6561...

Re: Microsoft Bets Its Future on a Reprogrammable Computer Chip

#34

Post by p1esk »

emcq wrote: post #33
p1esk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that link, where's the comparison of fpga vs TX1?

If you click on Papers, there is a link to "Going Deeper with Embedded FPGA for Convolutional Neural Network", which compares against the TK1: https://nicsefc.ee.tsinghua.edu.cn/media/publications/2016/F... While not the TX1 vs FPGA result you want, this is very close. For example they aren't using the latest FPGA or GPU, and are not using TensorRT on the GPU and on the FPGA side they are using fatty 16-bit weights o…

Thanks, but TK1 is using FP32 weights, as opposed to FP16 on FPGA. If you double the GOP/s number for TK1 to account for that, you will end up with pretty much identical performance, and the paper claims they both consume ~9W.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that to make a convincing claim that FPGAs are more power efficient than GPUs, one needs to do an apples to apples comparison.

And of course, let's not forget about price: Zynq ZC706 board is what, over $6k? And Jetson TK1 was what when released, $300? If you need to deploy a thousand of these chips in your datacenter, to save a million per year on power, you will need several years to break even, and by that time, you will probably need to upgrade.

It just seems that GPUs are a better deal currently, with or without looking at power efficiency.

Post reply on HN