Live data from Hacker News

What happened to clockless computer chips?

stackoverflow.com

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#41

Could asynchronous designs improve performance of future CPUs if and when Moore's Law hits physical limits?

They can certainly improve performance, in that eg. a NOP instruction will "lock" the processor for much shorter than eg. a JZ; the main concern at this time is that we lack the research, expertise and instruments to deal with asynchronous CPUs.

A NOP shouldn't ever take up actual pipeline space in a modern CPU - it can be discarded at decode.

A clock is a signal that is used as a valid signal for the data moving across a bus. That could be as short as between pipeline stages.

With async you have a different valid signal, which you will need to derive.

With aggressive dynamic frequency and voltage scaling, clock gating, power gating and having different power and clock islands you get a design that is very difficult to improve on. What AMD has done recently with circuits that lower voltage based on reading the environment on chip rather than sticking to a frequency: voltage mapping is a nice optimisation.

What async designs don't improve on are all the static power issues that are increasingly important.

It all adds up to being an interesting take on the problem of digital design, but not much more.

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when Moore's Law hits physical limits? It already did. Sophie Wilson said [0] its 28nm for ever. Scaling further makes no economic sense (unless you really need the space, e.g. in Smartphones). [0] https://youtu.be/_9mzmvhwMqw?t=34m4s

> It already did. Sophie Wilson said [0] its 28nm for ever. That's not quite what her slide said. It's that the transistors on 14nm are _currently_ more expensive than those at 28nm, although that may change. And then she states that only some things will make sense to do at less than 28nm. But a lot of the really big players are already at 14nm or will be there very shortly. Apple, Intel, Samsung, AMD and Nvidia are…

fwiw, 14/16nm is now cheaper than 28nm due to wafer price cuts and improved yields

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#43
post #31

The quote from Ken Stevens, whose opinion I respect, makes a compelling argument, and certainly Intel has a lot of expertise on asynchronous design, but I'm wondering if its position is similar to that of Kodak inventing digital imaging in the 1980s. That is, there would be less money for Intel to make in a future where asynchronous design prevails, so there's no incentive for them to develop it. With a properly exec…

> circuits would be more likely to work on the first try because a whole class of hardware bugs wouldn't be a thing anymore This reminds me of 4GL hype. I'd say it's the other way round. People have trouble learning synchronous logic design because everything happens in parallel, but it's a set of well-understood building blocks. Whereas asynchronous design is just entirely free of familiar reference points and there…

> synchronous logic design because everything happens in parallel, but it's a set of well-understood building blocks. Whereas asynchronous design is just entirely free of familiar reference points and there isn't quite the same set of standard idioms....Yes, you get rid of setup/hold violations, but you're going to get a whole new class of problems with the addition that "timing closure" is now a moving target.

Sounds like the argument about the problems and differences typed/untyped programming languages. One set of problems is solved with typing at the cost of linguistic expressiveness due to lacking and/or cumbersome type systems.

I'm thinking async hardware is the typeless of HW designs, but that also takes off the safety guards used from years of experience in synchronous design.

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM tried it in the 90s with the AMULET. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMULET_microprocessor

I knew someone who was (tangentially) involved with that; apparently one of the biggest problems was that it came out during the height of the Megahertz Wars, and pretty much the first thing anyone asked about the AMULET was how fast it was, expecting a clock speed as the answer. Given that the answer to that question for the AMULET was 'Errm...', they'd then just abandon it as a processor candidate as being conceptu…

If that was really what did it in then it shows a real lack of creativity. Synthetic Mhz would have been the way to go - just like how the EPA still gives an MPG rating to electric cars.

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#45
post #36

one of the main issues in asynchronous design is the idea of gate delays, i.e delays in individual logic gates that compound inside of a circuit. there are ways of dealing with this. delay-insensitive circuitry, QDI circuitry, micropipelines... if you're interested as to the "state of the art", as I learned it, look no further than Principles of Asynchronous Circuit Design[1], a fantastic book. a PDF[2] is also avail…

Can typical FPGAs support async circuits?

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#46
post #36

one of the main issues in asynchronous design is the idea of gate delays, i.e delays in individual logic gates that compound inside of a circuit. there are ways of dealing with this. delay-insensitive circuitry, QDI circuitry, micropipelines... if you're interested as to the "state of the art", as I learned it, look no further than Principles of Asynchronous Circuit Design[1], a fantastic book. a PDF[2] is also avail…

[deleted]

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#47
post #45
post #36

one of the main issues in asynchronous design is the idea of gate delays, i.e delays in individual logic gates that compound inside of a circuit. there are ways of dealing with this. delay-insensitive circuitry, QDI circuitry, micropipelines... if you're interested as to the "state of the art", as I learned it, look no further than Principles of Asynchronous Circuit Design[1], a fantastic book. a PDF[2] is also avail…

Can typical FPGAs support async circuits?

Yes, is it practical: No. You'd probably have to calculate (and know) all interconnect path delays for all solutions you want to try. You'd need to take into account not just the available gates but also their individual delays. I'd stick with emulation for now, though there are async 8051 processors which are extremely interesting due to their low power usage.[1]

[1]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4519392/

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#48
post #45
post #36

one of the main issues in asynchronous design is the idea of gate delays, i.e delays in individual logic gates that compound inside of a circuit. there are ways of dealing with this. delay-insensitive circuitry, QDI circuitry, micropipelines... if you're interested as to the "state of the art", as I learned it, look no further than Principles of Asynchronous Circuit Design[1], a fantastic book. a PDF[2] is also avail…

Can typical FPGAs support async circuits?

definitely. plenty of literature on this. the problem, however, is how the delays are calculated. FPGAs have a lot more intermediate logic to determine which gates are connected to what, and that means intermediate delays that you need to account for.

not saying it can't be done or even that it's hard. just a different process.

Re: What happened to clockless computer chips?

#49
post #13

Just a dumb question. Will it affect the instruction set of the CPU. Does the programming change fundamentally with async cpu's.

Modern x86 with its out of order execution is already pretty "async". Little changed for programmers, except those writing very low-level code, or compilers.

Does this mean not all instructions are treated equal ? Some instructions need to make an extra check before or after the execution OR some instructions will be deprecated and new instructions need to be added ?
Post reply on HN