Big OOO, SpMT, and possible designs (Was Re: Free/Open x86 Sim)
|
Prev: A post to comp.risks that everyone on comp.arch should read
Next: Call for papers : HPCS-10, USA, July 2010
From: nmm1 on 15 May 2010 16:11 In article <u1vddue17.fsf(a)harrekilde.dk>, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(a)harrekilde.dk> wrote: > >Try the <1mW range for a hearing aid system, including A/D microphones >and all. They run on ZnAir batteries, since the give the highest >energy density, but output 1.1-13V, but only ~1mA sustained. > >Oh, and you have a limited volume available (mm^3) since you need to >be able to place it inside the ear canal, together with a battery, >microphone, and a speaker. Well, not mine, because my hearing is too bad for that, but your point stands. It amuses me that each of my hearing aids has 6 cores running at 20 MIPS, where the first computer I used had one processor with a 60 microsecond cycle time. And it took up a large chunk of a Nissen hut :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Piotr Wyderski on 19 May 2010 05:34 nedbrek wrote: > It should be a lot easier to get (at least) two different designs - one > ultra lowe power (which sacrifices perf), one with good perf for more > power (but not crazy power). > > Intel has finally achieved this with Atom and Core. It's hard to call Atom an ultra low power CPU compared to ARM-based SoCs. Best regards Piotr Wyderski
From: ned on 19 May 2010 07:35 Piotr Wyderski wrote: > nedbrek wrote: > >> It should be a lot easier to get (at least) two different designs - one >> ultra lowe power (which sacrifices perf), one with good perf for more >> power (but not crazy power). >> >> Intel has finally achieved this with Atom and Core. > > It's hard to call Atom an ultra low power CPU compared to ARM-based SoCs. I guess I'm showing my age... When Itanium first shipped, it was 130 W. Itanium II was the same. I felt, that if Itanium were to compete against the 200+ W (aptly named) Power parts from IBM, it would need similar power budget. We are now in an age where a 30 W laptop part is "high power" (scaling to 60 or 100 W). In my perfect world, "high power" would be ~100 W (scaling up to 200 to compete against IBM, and coming down to 60 for desktop types [including "desktop replacement" laptops]). "Low power" would be ~10 W. Filling the whole laptop space (5W-60W). Anything below that is "ultra low" aka "Not interesting" :) Ned
From: Andy 'Krazy' Glew on 19 May 2010 11:04 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!)
From: MitchAlsup on 19 May 2010 12:07
On May 19, 6:35 am, ned <nedb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Piotr Wyderski wrote: > > nedbrek wrote: > I guess I'm showing my age... > > When Itanium first shipped, it was 130 W. Itanium II was the same. I > felt, that if Itanium were to compete against the 200+ W (aptly > named) Power parts from IBM, it would need similar power budget. > > We are now in an age where a 30 W laptop part is "high power" (scaling > to 60 or 100 W). Heck, I remember when high power was 300KVA. > "Low power" would be ~10 W. Filling the whole laptop space (5W-60W). > Anything below that is "ultra low" aka "Not interesting" :) How about a sub 1W part so your laptop has enough energy in the battery to be left on all day long, and the only part needing power throttling is the display. Mitch |