The concept of "Smart Memory" has been around for a while...from 2000 at least: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=339673
IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
101–110 of 138 posts
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#102This is the promise of memristors. Despite innumerable articles being written about neuromorphic architectures like they'll be something miraculous, this ability to change from functioning as a bit of memory to being a bunch of functional logic on the fly at the speed of a memory read? That's going to be crazy. It will open up possibilities that we probably can't even imagine right now. I've never understood why peop…
I was not technologically inclined in high school, but I distinctly remember a peer talking about how cool they were and how much they could be used to do. This article is the second time I've ever heard the word. So... I guess the fact that it's been 7 years and they're still just "going to do awesome things" is probably a good reason why.
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed that overly excited articles are tend to be nonsense until they're finally true. I know that sounds like tautological nonsense, but the trick comes down to predicting when these things will become real rather than if they become real. From my experience, if you want a good indication, look at price/performance trends for a particular technology. If that technology has no price/performance data, look at t…
> I've noticed that overly excited articles are tend to be nonsense until they're finally true. The funny thing is that if you reread Wired's article about Push, which they've been made fun of for ever since writing it, the only thing that hasn't come true is the technologies they predicted would power it. But other than that it's a perfect description of Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, etc. https://www.wired.com/1997/03/…
Funny, but I was thinking pretty much the same thing about push a day or so back myself.
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#104This is the promise of memristors. Despite innumerable articles being written about neuromorphic architectures like they'll be something miraculous, this ability to change from functioning as a bit of memory to being a bunch of functional logic on the fly at the speed of a memory read? That's going to be crazy. It will open up possibilities that we probably can't even imagine right now. I've never understood why peop…
> I've never understood why people don't get more excited about memristors. personally, mostly because i've been seeing articles about how they're just about to totally upend computing for the last ten years
Try 45 years.
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know I submitted the first ever article about memristors to HN, which was this in 2008: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=177865
HN has only been around since 2007
Ambiguous language. I thank what was being implied is that it was the first occurrence of that type of article on HN, not that the article was the first ever about memristers and was posted to HN.
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#106Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#107This is the promise of memristors. Despite innumerable articles being written about neuromorphic architectures like they'll be something miraculous, this ability to change from functioning as a bit of memory to being a bunch of functional logic on the fly at the speed of a memory read? That's going to be crazy. It will open up possibilities that we probably can't even imagine right now. I've never understood why peop…
I can't talk for other people, but I personally don't try to get over-excited over anything unless I see a working proof of concept where the advantages are clear. It's kinda unfortunate, because there's great work being done in research that I should probably feel much more excited about, but I'm continuously bombarded with new discoveries that I never hear about again.
That's fine but it is a very conservative approach. I also can't talk for other people, however I personally get excited about new things without a working proof yet and where the advantages aren't clear. It makes for a lot of disappointment and isn't for the faint of heart. I'd rather see the future as it happens, false starts and all.
So the bleeding edge is where I want to be.
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were right. Who was right about what? > They are the equivalent of second generation laser printers. What does this even mean?
Roentgen and Retina displays are in the neighborhood of 200 ppi, which is about when laser printers became 'clear' and legible, which was the thesis behind Roentgen. But now you've got smart phones pushing in the region of 400 PPI. It's smoother, and make Apple displays look like laggards. But they're beyond the point where most eyes notice the difference without magnification.
1G started in 1976 with the IBM 3800 at 240 dpi.
HP’s first 2G laser (LaserJet w/ Canon CX engine) was 300 dpi in 1984.
Also I had a 600 dpi LJ 4 which was released in 1992.
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
"this ability to change from functioning as a bit of memory to being a bunch of functional logic on the fly at the speed of a memory read?" My excitement is tempered by considering the areal demands on the silicon for the putative "smart memory". Suppose, just for the sake of argument, you want your smart memory to be able to take a 4K block of 64-bit integers and add them together. It happens incredible quickly, sur…
No, you don't need more gates in each memory cell to support each possible operation. The memory cell turns into gates. They are the same thing, just in a different configuration. And yes, it would be a ton of silicon, likely more than you're imagining. It would subsume all CPU silicon, all cache, all main memory, all mass storage. Into one fabric which at any point can either store data, or compute. And yes, it pers…
You've jumped to the idea that somehow this research makes microarchitecture disappear. It won't.
Re: IBM scientists say radical new ‘in-memory’ architecture will speed up computers
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Roentgen and Retina displays are in the neighborhood of 200 ppi, which is about when laser printers became 'clear' and legible, which was the thesis behind Roentgen. But now you've got smart phones pushing in the region of 400 PPI. It's smoother, and make Apple displays look like laggards. But they're beyond the point where most eyes notice the difference without magnification.
The PPI required for the "Retina" effect is largely dependent on viewing distance, which is why Apple vary the PPI according to the device, they aren't a blanket ~200 PPI as you suggest. The Apple Watch and most iPhones (including the original Retina display on the iPhone 4) are around 300-400 PPI, with the X being 458. Only Apple's "Retina" laptop/iMac displays have been around 220, which normally looks great given…
Higher dpi maybe required for those kids these days whom hold their phones a few centimeters / inches from their eyes. I call it sera rubens myopia, Latin for glowing myopia.