Prev: A post to comp.risks that everyone on comp.arch should read
Next: Call for papers : HPCS-10, USA, July 2010
From: ned on 19 May 2010 17:15
Andy 'Krazy' Glew wrote:

> On 5/19/2010 4:35 AM, ned wrote:
>> Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>
>>> nedbrek wrote:
>> "Low power" would be ~10 W. Filling the whole laptop space (5W-60W).
>> Anything below that is "ultra low" aka "Not interesting" :)
>
> We share a common interest in advanced microarchitecture, Ed,
> but we differ greatly wrt low or ultra low power.
>
> Not interesting????
>
> I want to work on the computers that will run my contact lens displays. They gotta be low power. (Unless you want to
> extract circa 10W from the body somehow - buy our wearable computer system and lose weight!)

To me, low power is just a matter of sorting your features by perf
and power cost, and selecting the subset that fits your budget. Only
the unconstrained budget is free to use every idea.

Ned

From: EricP on 19 May 2010 17:16
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
> Andy 'Krazy' Glew <ag-news(a)patten-glew.net> writes:
>
>> On 5/19/2010 4:35 AM, ned wrote:
>>> Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>>>
>>>> nedbrek wrote:
>>> "Low power" would be ~10 W. Filling the whole laptop space (5W-60W).
>>> Anything below that is "ultra low" aka "Not interesting" :)
>> We share a common interest in advanced microarchitecture, Ed,
>> but we differ greatly wrt low or ultra low power.
>>
>> Not interesting????
>>
>> I want to work on the computers that will run my contact lens
>> displays. They gotta be low power. (Unless you want to extract circa
>> 10W from the body somehow - buy our wearable computer system and lose
>> weight!)
>
> Even if extracting 10W from the body was doable, you'd still have the
> formidable task of making sure that the dissipation of your 10W
> contact lens don't burn your eyes into charcoal.
>
> For contact-lens sized computers, I'd say significantly less than
> 1W. After all, 1W is a lot of heat, when applied directly to your
> skin!
>
>
> Kai

These guys have developed a glucose powered fuel cell
that is implanted in the body.
It currently generates 2 to 6 microwatts in rats.
They hope to get tens of milliwatts when they scale up for humans.

Glucose biofuel cells may soon power implants
http://www.physorg.com/news193470170.html

Eric


From: Robert Myers on 19 May 2010 18:00
On May 19, 5:13 pm, ned <nedb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Get better battery technology.  Maybe methane fuel cells... :)  Maybe
> pocket fusion for a 300 KVA laptop :P
>
Cooled through a wormhole to a cooling tower farm north of the Arctic
Circle. $39.95 per month for unlimited use in today's dollars.

Robert.
From: MitchAlsup on 19 May 2010 20:40
On May 19, 12:29 pm, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote:
> >That is to say, I would have put my money on the hardware guys to find
> >parallelism in the instruction stream while software guys were still
> >dithering about language aesthetics.  I thought this way all the way
> >up to the 90nm step for the P4.
>
> As you know, I didn't.  The performance/clock factor (which is what
> the architecture delivers) hasn't improved much.

I often wonder what could have happened if DRAMs spend as much money
as processors chasing performance rather than price/bit.

Much of the lack of performance from the BG OoO machines is due to the
memory wall. That is DRAM accesses are about hundred clocks away (2
GHz processors and 50ns DRAMs (measured at the stall point of the
requesting CPU)). Reservation stations, renaming, branch prediction,
speculative execution are all good for covering the 25-50 cycles of
latency stuff, and asymptotically run out of gas above 100 cycles (or
so).

Mitch.
From: Robert Myers on 19 May 2010 23:28
On May 19, 8:40 pm, MitchAlsup <MitchAl...(a)aol.com> wrote:

>
> Much of the lack of performance from the BG OoO machines is due to the
> memory wall. That is DRAM accesses are about hundred clocks away (2
> GHz processors and 50ns DRAMs (measured at the stall point of the
> requesting CPU)). Reservation stations, renaming, branch prediction,
> speculative execution are all good for covering the 25-50 cycles of
> latency stuff, and asymptotically run out of gas above 100 cycles (or
> so).
>
I had thought that much of recent progress was in the number and
sophistication of prefetch engines, the details of which don't get
talked about much.

Robert.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: A post to comp.risks that everyone on comp.arch should read
Next: Call for papers : HPCS-10, USA, July 2010