Live data from Hacker News

How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

lemire.me

191–200 of 202 posts

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#191
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it has less meaning than the idea that the most sere and hostile environment for our species that we've yet been able to access - the deadliest imaginable desert, accessible only at vast effort and expense - has for our taking the boundless cornucopia of riches that space maximalists constantly promise, and with no more support than you complain I offer. We've already benefited greatly from just the p…

These justifications aren't novel, and aren't really much better than you claim mine to be. You gesture vaguely at technological progress, as every humans-in-space booster does. I have yet to hear anyone defend any of those advances as both useful enough to be worth wanting, and impossible to achieve on Earth. That's an easier job in this case because we're discussing a counterfactual, so you're as free to invent som…

> If, even in the face of all that, I still can be unconvinced by the case for putting humans as we are now into space, then that case needs to be better made.

The case is fine; the problem is your ignorance to seemingly many factors.

> As far as "human curiosity beyond rationality" I would have been much more sympathetic to that argument before it became inescapably obvious that in its pursuit we have quite literally set the world on fire.

Well, one of humanity's first great advancements was, in fact, to create fire.

We are making tremendous efforts in many different fields, but it's becoming abundantly clear that the only thing you actually care about is global warming, which, unsurprisingly, is something that we have people working on and hundreds of billions of dollars being spent annually on to solve. Oh, and wouldn't you know it, the space program's existence continues to contribute to climate science with earth-observing satellites [1] that provide all sorts of data that would only be possible from space. Thanks, space program!

[1] https://eospso.nasa.gov/

> Humans aren't going anywhere any time soon, and I see nothing meaningful to choose between Mars today and Mars a hundred years from now, or two hundred, or a thousand. In that meantime, our efforts could make a meaningful difference as to how many billion humans are alive to celebrate that happy day.

Once again, you've not provided any rationale or reason as to why we can't work on more than one thing at once, or why the space program in particular has earned your ire. You can look up the dozens of advancements we've made directly thanks to our endeavors in heading to space. In fact i've already given you one very important example as to how it's relevant to your interests. You choosing to remain ignorant about the rest is your own choice, but it's quite clear that you're too ignorant to be making any value judgments on the space program at large.

Why not just admit that your argument is purely ideological? Or at least make an argument for what that money (that you don't seem to know even how much is being spent) should be spent on and how much further it could go in that area? The space program is not in ideological opposition with solving climate change; in fact it's playing a critical role in it.

> You really want to convince me that space boosterism might still, in spite of everything, have merit? Show me you can take the long view.

This is the long view; immense progress can happen from random discovery or it can happen slowly and gradually over time. We pursue these avenues because we don't know where it will take us or how long, just that we pursue these curiosities because it is what humanity was made for. If we only had 100 people on earth then sure, maybe it wouldn't be worth looking to the stars. But we don't have only 100 people.

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#193
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These justifications aren't novel, and aren't really much better than you claim mine to be. You gesture vaguely at technological progress, as every humans-in-space booster does. I have yet to hear anyone defend any of those advances as both useful enough to be worth wanting, and impossible to achieve on Earth. That's an easier job in this case because we're discussing a counterfactual, so you're as free to invent som…

> If, even in the face of all that, I still can be unconvinced by the case for putting humans as we are now into space, then that case needs to be better made. The case is fine; the problem is your ignorance to seemingly many factors. > As far as "human curiosity beyond rationality" I would have been much more sympathetic to that argument before it became inescapably obvious that in its pursuit we have quite literall…

> Why not just admit that your argument is purely ideological?

Of course it is! And so is yours.

If not from ideology, where come you by the idea that "we pursue these curiosities because it is what humanity was made for?" That statement has zero factual content and can be meaningfully parsed only as a statement of belief. How do you mean me to imagine it as not ideological in origin?

I would, though, prefer it if we could stay on the same page with regard to what we're discussing. At no point for example have I said I have a problem with placing satellites in Earth orbit, and not by accident have I been specific in phrases like "putting humans in space". Robots in space, serving our ends, are cheap, easy, durable, and worth the trouble. Meat in space, at vastly greater expense and fragile complexity, is not.

Certainly we can do more than one thing at once, too. But every thing we do has an opportunity cost. My point is simply that the opportunity cost of putting humans in space has yet to be justified by any result - very notably including any output of the Space Shuttle program, where my opinion largely tracks Cegłowski's wellknown 2005 review [1], albeit perhaps with a touch more charity - and with no realistic prospect of that changing, I see no compelling reason to throw any more good money after such a vast sea of bad.

[1] https://idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#194
post #18

I vaguely recall (many years ago) some GPU (a Matrox one iirc) coming out and it being a huge deal because of how many transistors it had. I think it may have been an amazing 100 million. Times have changed :D

MHz->GHz wars. This caused Intel and AMD to chase hyperdeep pipelines with terrible stall characteristics and awful cycle efficiencies. You're misremembering. Matrox cards were also terribly slow in DOS and anything adjacent to 3D. I own several models with SGRAM. Even GeForce 2 GTS: 25m transistors. G200: 10m. Voodoo2: 4m.

> You're misremembering. Matrox cards were also terribly slow in DOS and anything adjacent to 3D

Nope, it was the Parhelia released in 2002 - so somewhat later than the hardware you're considering. The Parhelia was what I was thinking of, with a truly insane number of transistors: 80 million! ("something like" was bearing quite a lot of weight in my first comment :D ). However it was only in the same ballpark, not actually faster that the Geforce 4 Ti or the Radeon 8500, and it was more expensive, so failed in the market.

The relevant anandtech review: https://www.anandtech.com/show/936 (post 936, vs this week's Qualcomm which is post 21112 :D )

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#196
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If, even in the face of all that, I still can be unconvinced by the case for putting humans as we are now into space, then that case needs to be better made. The case is fine; the problem is your ignorance to seemingly many factors. > As far as "human curiosity beyond rationality" I would have been much more sympathetic to that argument before it became inescapably obvious that in its pursuit we have quite literall…

> Why not just admit that your argument is purely ideological? Of course it is! And so is yours. If not from ideology, where come you by the idea that "we pursue these curiosities because it is what humanity was made for?" That statement has zero factual content and can be meaningfully parsed only as a statement of belief. How do you mean me to imagine it as not ideological in origin? I would, though, prefer it if we…

> If not from ideology, where come you by the idea that "we pursue these curiosities because it is what humanity was made for?" That statement has zero factual content and can be meaningfully parsed only as a statement of belief. How do you mean me to imagine it as not ideological in origin?

I don't need an ideological justification to allow people to do things that they want to. I'm not the one looking to reduce people's rights to pursue their interests; you are. That's why there is a distinction between my position and yours.

> At no point for example have I said I have a problem with placing satellites in Earth orbit, and not by accident have I been specific in phrases like "putting humans in space".

> > Look after the people on Earth first. Once we show we can accomplish that, then and only then do we begin to earn the stars.

I think a reasonable interpretation of this is that you do not think humanity has not "earned the stars." It would not reasonably be interpreted as only referring to sending humans into space.

> Robots in space, serving our ends, are cheap, easy, durable, and worth the trouble. Meat in space, at vastly greater expense and fragile complexity, is not.

Why not? What is the criteria for it being worthwhile?

> My point is simply that the opportunity cost of putting humans in space has yet to be justified by any result - very notably including any output of the Space Shuttle program, where my opinion largely tracks Cegłowski's wellknown 2005 review [1], albeit perhaps with a touch more charity - and with no realistic prospect of that changing, I see no compelling reason to throw any more good money after such a vast sea of bad.

Putting humans into space is a remarkably new thing that has largely been interrupted by its lack of funding. What are you even comparing this against? What returns would be required for it to satisfy your need for an ROI?

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that says more about you than about the iPhone. One example: User experience regarding camera processing improved tremendously between X and 14. Only with the bigger processing power they could optimize images in a fraction of a second after taking them. The photonic engine as we have today, would not be deliver the same experience on an iPhone X.

It is still the same use case. I mentioned the iPhone X and not the earlier models because the X takes really good photos and videos. Sure the later models are better; but it is a bit like watching 4K instead of 1080p on the TV. I can tell the difference but 1080p is fine.

I’d say you’re right and the differences are marginal for most photography but the real differences come out with things like night photos or portrait mode. Daylight pics are mostly all the same honestly.

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#198

It’s pretty frustrating having a locked supercomputer in your pocket. I just want to play some emulated games, PC games from the 90s, host a desktop experience from my phone, etc..

Couldn't you run Windows 95 or 98 on DOSBox on your phone just for fun? (never tried myself, maybe there is something better than DOSBox for that)

You have to jailbreak your phone which means many people don't even try porting things over to iOS in the first place. So much wasted potential.

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#199
post #122
post #48

I've often struggled to really "grok" how complex chips are. They all kinda look the same. I write software, so I know how complex that is, but like the device itself -- it's this little black box. What's the difference between one little black box and another? Most people don't even get that far; they think the computer is the screen that lights up. I've been reading datasheets a lot at work. The datasheet for an ST…

The reality is that 70-90% of a CPU is SRAM (cache and registers), and only a small portion is actual logic and even that is replicated across multiple cores. Factor in the extremely redundant gpu on the SoC with its own cores and SRAM along with the I/O controller and those billions of transistors boil down to a tiny amount of actual unique logic circuits. Still very impressive, but helps put things in perspective.

10 pct of 10 billion is still a billion ;)

Re: How many billions of transistors in an iPhone processor?

#200
post #172
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carry over is still not as efficient as directly spending on what you want.

If you know what you want. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” I sure never anticipated cosmetic surgeons twerking on Instagram in their scrubs to advertise themselves between the videos of a chick jumping into a confused Labrador's mouth and that one of the kid on a bike being shocked by the existence of brown chalk when they see a Pokémon drawn on a sidewalk.

Yes. Direct spending is more efficient, but it's not magic.

But that doesn't mean that indirect spending and praying for spillover works better.

Post reply on HN