Live data from Hacker News

Intel's disruption is now complete

jamesallworth.medium.com

441–450 of 638 posts

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from cache, anandtech notes https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/apple-silicon-m1-a14-de... What really defines Apple’s Firestorm CPU core from other designs in the industry is just the sheer width of the microarchitecture. "Width" enables greater parallel execution of instructions.

Thank you for the link. That article says the cpu has a 630 op reorder buffer. Does that mean it has to throw out up to 630 instructions on a mispredict? That sounds huge, so I wonder if I’m misunderstanding.

Imagine a cpu that executed this sequence of instructions:

    r1 = r2 * r3
    r2 = r3 * r4
    r3 = r4 * r5
    r4 = r5 * r6
On a first glance it might seem that the execution order matters because if you reorder lines in this source coxe the meaning indeed changes (e.g. the first instructions depends on an input in r2 but r2 gets a new value in the second instruction).

But if you rewrite the names of the registers (variables) and use a larger set of registers (variables) then you can express the same semantics without overwriting any registers. If you do so you can run the operations in parallel on different execution units within the same core.

The ability to run multiple functions at the same time is called "multiple (or wide) issue".

There are different kinds of functional units inside a cpu. For example, some can do basic arithmetic but not divide. At any given time, some functional units will be busy or free. The amount of effective parallelism present in the input stream you can effectively use is bound on whether you can successfully map your instructions into functional units that are free at that time.

Often, you while cannot run a given instruction because for example the multiplier unit is busy, the next instruction could be run because it depends on the divider functional unit, which at that time is free.

The ability to execute instructions out of order is called, well, "out of order execution". It depends on the ability to rename registers and keep track of actual data dependencies. The cpu needs some memory to keep track of that data.

It's unrelated pipelining (which I could give a try explaining too if anybody cares to hear a similar explanation)

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#442
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not really the case. Most Intel servers run linux, Intel has nearly complete control over linux in a practical sense. They can put developers in it and update the OS and unless its a very user hostile feature it will go into the mainline kernel and be everywhere. The same goes for compiler and so on. Intel could easily open up their boot and make the store there much better. The don't quite have the vertical…

Unlikely. There is more Linux devices running as Android on ARM than any other processors. You I can run Termux on ARM Android with complete set of of GNU tools. Also ARM is supported natively by Debian and Ubuntu [1]. Once devs will sort out their new shiny ARM Macs whoes (Docker, other tooling) I smell there may be ARM server market rising soon. [1] https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/installation-guide/armhf/ch02s01...

Amazon already offers EC2 A1 (ARM64) instances available, and I'm sure Nvidia's purchase of ARM is going to bear fruit in the data center.

AMD's Epyc chips are pretty awesome though too so I don't think x64 is on it's death bed.. but it should be an interesting couple of years watching this space heat up.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#443
Industry behemoths do need near-death experiences from time to time. Intel is not yet near-death. They still have overwhelming market share and it still seems to them that they are "succeeding". Their future will depend on whether or not they choose to get high off their own PR supply.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This law is the reason term-limits and liquid-democracy are such strong tools. Term limits are best implemented where someone must take on a different job every x years. This doesn't solve the problem of entrenched vampiric bureaucrats entirely, but it at least pushes them towards the chopping block. Liquid democracy is a type of democracy where people give their voting power for particular issues to whoever they tru…

What about the people who project themselves as being experts in a very believable fashion but are actually not experts? Human nature would tend to cause these people to double down on their own self delusion rather than admit they don’t actually know what they are talking about. How do we guard against that?

Whiteboard interviews! Wait, no

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when I went to visit Intel a few years ago. I was shocked at the bare bones amenities and that employees had to pay for everything (snacks/drinks/etc.). That might sound insignificant but in the talent war in SV that stuff mattered a lot back then. It was a stark contrast from nearly every other fast-growing tech company in the area.

Ah, Intel. Acre-sized floors of tiny cubicles. Everything is grey. Really.[1] I visited Intel HQ once, and it really did look like that. Is it still like that? [1] https://youtu.be/gXReifFHXbY?t=44

No. It's all about open space now.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt you can get to the executive level of such a large company without playing politics. And playing it well. It's inevitable.

There was a comment in one of the Google biographies that the execs fought so much (maybe bill Campbell? RIP) that Sundnar became the person to unwedge the egos and therefore got selected on that basis.

It's hard to think of a 'successful' tech org without a massive ego at the top. So far Sundar hasn't shown he has what it takes. Is a massive ego required to drive these orgs?

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#447
> And Apple converted. Steve Jobs invited Otellini on stage at Macworld to make the announcement.

In case anybody was wondering why Otellini was wearing a cleanroom suit on stage, it was a reference to Apple's 1998 "Toasted Bunny" commercial for the Power Macintosh G3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6PoLiXCA40

…which was itself a reference to the Pentium Ⅱ commercials of the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvt65mHXmR4

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#448
post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've linked to many times on HN: The Iron Law of Bureaucracy > Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": > First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricu…

That sounds like an ironclad law. But is there empirical evidence for it? And a rational explanation behind it? I mean it's very strict as a rule: "in EVERY case the second group ... ". Strong claims like that require strong evidence and a theory of WHY that would (always) be the outcome. I'm thinking of society as large. That is an organization too. Are we doomed by bureaucracy?

> But is there empirical evidence for it? And a rational explanation behind it?

I don't have empirical evidence for it, but I can take a stab at a rational explanation.

The second group faces no opposition in their pursuit for control of the organization and its processes.

At best, members of that group will fight among themselves, but certainly won't find resistance from the first group.

Control over various parts of the organization is therefore slowly given to one or more members of the second group.

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#449
post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I've linked to many times on HN: The Iron Law of Bureaucracy > Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": > First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricu…

That sounds like an ironclad law. But is there empirical evidence for it? And a rational explanation behind it? I mean it's very strict as a rule: "in EVERY case the second group ... ". Strong claims like that require strong evidence and a theory of WHY that would (always) be the outcome. I'm thinking of society as large. That is an organization too. Are we doomed by bureaucracy?

[deleted]

Re: Intel's disruption is now complete

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the link. That article says the cpu has a 630 op reorder buffer. Does that mean it has to throw out up to 630 instructions on a mispredict? That sounds huge, so I wonder if I’m misunderstanding.

Imagine a cpu that executed this sequence of instructions: r1 = r2 * r3 r2 = r3 * r4 r3 = r4 * r5 r4 = r5 * r6 On a first glance it might seem that the execution order matters because if you reorder lines in this source coxe the meaning indeed changes (e.g. the first instructions depends on an input in r2 but r2 gets a new value in the second instruction). But if you rewrite the names of the registers (variables) and…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN