Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

chipsandcheese.com

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

#41
post #38

I did appreciate the article and it's not AI slop by any means, but did anyone else notice how the language and grammar felt very LLM-written? Or at least edited from a LLM draft? I used to really enjoy Chips and Cheese's writing, not sure if they made a change.

I haven't read any of their previous articles but I had to jump out and go through the comments here just because of how LLM-ist it felt. Right in first paragraph or two, it started feeling weird.

If you say it isn't just slop, I suppose I'll push past and read it. The topic itself did seem interesting.

Re: Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

#42
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code in compilers is the closest to your typical app you can get in a benchmark like SPEC, eveerything else is actually far more specialized. Compiler code is full of small basic blocks, lots of branches, indirect memory access; it's actually harder to get good performance for such code, both for CPUs and compilers (that was part of the death of Itanium too).

I mildly disagree - depending on your definition of "typical app". Most applications have much greater use of multi-processing and concurrent cross-thread (or cross-process) communication. Compilers, aside from high-level parallelism across modules, tend to be quite single-threaded applications. If you're solely interested in single-core performance, then I would agree that they are a good stress test, but I think fo…

In the history of the SPEC benchmarks, the compiler benchmarks, like gcc, have been the best predictor of CPU performance for the applications that cannot benefit from array operations, so they cannot use the vector or matrix instruction set extensions.

The reason is that for the other benchmarks the CPU vendors have always succeeded sooner or later, to tweak their compilers and compiling options, or even the hardware of the CPUs, in order to get improved benchmark results that nonetheless are not indicative of the improvements in other applications.

On the other hand, the compiling benchmarks, like with gcc, and now also with clang, are too diverse in CPU resource usage and no special feature of the CPU has a significantly greater weight than others, so special tricks to enhance the benchmark results have never been found.

When looking at the past SPECint results, the values of the gcc benchmark remain the most reliable relative performance estimator.

I doubt that this will change in the near future.

Moreover, the multi-threaded compiling benchmark is also very useful, because it matches exactly a real-world workload that is extremely frequently encountered. Due to the great clock frequency difference between running a benchmark on a single thread and running it on all available threads, the single-threaded results have a very poor correlation with the multi-threaded results.

Re: Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

#43

Let’s not forget the fact that despite their new market cap and being the beneficiary of having a near monopoly on making incredibly complex pickaxes during a gold rush… Nvidia is still the company with a long and consistent history of misleading their customers via marketing. Their greatest hits include: - The digital equivalent of the VW emissions scandal where drivers detected when they were being benchmarked and…

That 4gb vram deal sounds ahead of its time. CPU caches are tiered, why not ram? Looking forward to future systems with 8gb ddr6 and 8gb ddr5. "Swapping to ram" would become a thing.

Xbox has that right now. Some memory channels have 1GB chips while some have 2GB chips. So part of your memory space uses all channels and part uses more like half.

That GPU was much worse though. If that .5GB had been moderately slower it wouldn't have gotten the same attention. But because it was a weird backup path to that segment of memory, on a design that normally runs all segments in parallel, it ran at 1/7 the speed of everything else. Overflowing into it was devastating.

Re: Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

#44
post #36
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a hypothetical world where AMD wasn't allowed to do AMD64, and Intel stayed committed to Itanium: Itanium would still have sucked, and both PowerPC and SPARC would have out-sold Itanium by an even wider margin than they did in this reality. Itanium could only have succeeded if AMD64 wasn't possible and literally all of the competing 64-bit architectures were killed off by their owners so they could jump on the Ita…

> Itanium would still have sucked I'm not completely convinced of this. If you ignore VLIW, you just have a very unexciting RISC ISA, but because of the VLIW, you get extra scheduling info that most RISC designs don't provide which might be advantageous. The real question is actually about the code density of 41-bit instructions and if it can be offset by the 128-bit package (and perhaps something like allowing new 2…

The contemporaneous IBM POWER ISA was implemented in superscalar CPU cores with out-of-order execution and with SMT and it would provide superior performance in any equivalent fabrication technology.

The Itanium ISA actually had a few nice features, but it also had other bad features that outweighed the good features. Besides the static instruction scheduling in bundles, there was also the handicap of using SPARC style register windows, which slowed-down context switches.

The second version of HP PA-RISC, which was too quickly replaced by Itanium, would have had good chances of providing superior performance in comparison with Itanium, had it not been abandoned without a fight.

Re: Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

#45
post #32

Ohhh look, value prediction. Exactly the kind of thing that led to Spectre. There will be a cottage industry of information leaks and mitigations for a decade.

I've been around now long enough I'm becoming more convinced that the tech industry in a nutshell is just relearning the same things on a 10-15 year cadence

Re: Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

#47
post #32

Ohhh look, value prediction. Exactly the kind of thing that led to Spectre. There will be a cottage industry of information leaks and mitigations for a decade.

I've been around now long enough I'm becoming more convinced that the tech industry in a nutshell is just relearning the same things on a 10-15 year cadence

Was it that long ago?

Re: Nvidia’s Vera Whitepaper Has a Thread Loose

#48
post #4

I don’t think picking a handful of SPEC benchmarks that approximate today’s most common agentic workloads (compiling code, interpreting Python) and then calling them “agentic benchmarks” is misleading at all. That you need a whole lot of “ordinary” compute to benefit from the scaling properties of agents is the reason Nvidia is making this chip in the first place.

Benchmarks are benchmarks. You can base your decisions on them, because good numbers on them will give you good numbers on other related things you do, but nobody who has been in this industry for more than a year will take a benchmark as a guarantee those same numbers for your own workloads.

Benchmarking is tricky. The only one that counts is your software running the way you run it. I often run a profiler while running unit/integration tests, but I know the results will not replicate actual use - it's just a proxy, because I don't want to profile everything in production unless the profiler has almost zero cost.

Post reply on HN