News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by avs733 on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @09:58AM (#11344453)
translation: this transition has been inevitable since we discovered that immersion lithography is a bear, the deposition processes to support atomic layer deposition are a bitch, copper has issues being anorexic, our fabs are so sensitive that they are effected by nearby farms, and EUV litho is a piper dream (in a vacuum).

Not to judge, they make things that are mere atoms in size...but the corollary to Moore's law should always have been EY's law: The cost of each major change in semiconductor production methods doubles

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by gnu8 on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:22AM (#11344698)
Can you elaborate on how nearby farms have affected microchip fabs? Something to do with airborn organics from their animals or chemicals?
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by sevensor on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:59AM (#11345060)
When I worked in a fab, we saw process variation driven by weather patterns, so fabs are quite sensitive to their environments. (Barometric pressure can affect both diffusion and wets.) But I have a hard time seeing how a nearby farm would affect a fab. The air handling systems are pretty intense, so I imagine you'd see more filter changes if anything, and every change point has the potential to harm the process. But that's a pretty indirect mechanism. A sibling comment mentioned heavy machinery, which also seems unlikely. The lithography equipment had its own pedestals grounded in bedrock, separate from the building foundation, and each stepper/scanner has its own vibration damping. The rest of the equipment is less sensitive to vibration.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by avs733 on Thursday March 24, 2016 @11:00PM (#11358246)
basically this, but see my other answer :)

Thunderstorms used to just shut down litho for hours/shifts

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by atonse on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:29AM (#11344753)
My guess would be more vibrations?

Heavy equipment causes vibrations in the ground, which most people probably can't notice, but when you're literally printing at the atomic scale, microscopic vibrations probably make a difference.

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by kale on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @02:14PM (#11346867)
I work in a lab. We can't use our most accurate scales when there's construction going on with heavy machinery within a couple of blocks. This isn't cutting-edge stuff either, it's measuring to 0.001 gram, with a $10k scale and a 4" thick granite table on rubber pads (unlike other equipment that's on air floating supports with active counter balancing).
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by atonse on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @04:53PM (#11348135)
That's so interesting, thanks for sharing!
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by dave2000 on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @02:12PM (#11346849)
Wouldn't they make less difference than the vibrations caused by regular factories? Or should we be adding homeopathic fracking to the list of environmental concerns?
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by avs733 on Thursday March 24, 2016 @10:59PM (#11358243)
Sorry..was offline for a day. Farms generate more than food. They generate among other things

-Dust -Chemical over spray -Cow poop

there is no such thing as a perfect filter. What you learn over time (not me, the factory as a whole) is that wind direction matters, everything matters, and you start to pick apart causes and figure out why.

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by revelation on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:00AM (#11344476)
Or they figure there is no point in pouring exponentially more cash into R&D when there is no viable competition left.

It's hard to tell with Intel.

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by Igglyboo on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:19AM (#11344659)
They squashed AMD long ago, I don't think it's this.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by raverbashing on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:13AM (#11344591)
And less and less people buy new PCs with their products

Some phones have Intel processors but they're not popular

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by AnonNo15 on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:42AM (#11344880)
You forgot about server market which is Intel-dominated and growing well.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by avs733 on Monday March 28, 2016 @10:19PM (#11379078)
The way I have begun to term it to people not really familiar with technology is this:

Every time you buy a cellphone with an ARM chip, Amazon buys an Intel chip to process all the data, services, apps, and websites you access from your phone and all the data those services, apps, and websites collect from you.

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by beeboop on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:18AM (#11344647)
I found this hard to believe but from a quick Google search it appears you're right - Intel desktop CPU sales have been on a downward trend since 2011.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by creshal on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:58AM (#11345042)
That's partially related to Intel running against a wall with CPU speeds around that time, and partially to the mobile boom.

An 2011 i7-2600K desktop CPU is still competitive with current generation i7 CPUs for general-purpose computing – most improvements were in specialized instruction sets like AVX or TSX (which infamously was broken on the first generation shipping it). Lower-end i3 and i5 are even worse off, because they don't get most acceleration instruction sets in the first place.

For consumers, it makes absolutely no sense to upgrade their desktop PCs unless they break.

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by pcwalton on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @01:35PM (#11346520)
Well, don't forget the GPU. Intel Iris is much better than Intel HD.

The way I see it, this is our fault as software developers. A 2016 PC would be much faster than a 2011 PC if we as software developers made good use of SIMD and GPUs. But we don't.

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by r1ch on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @04:52PM (#11348126)
I think it's more developers getting lazy. Why bother with SIMD and GPUs when you can write in a high level language like javascript, design with HTML / CSS, deploy your app with embedded libchromium and have a faster time to market. SSDs and fast CPUs have made efficient software somewhat of a rarity these days.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by kristianp on Thursday March 24, 2016 @12:07AM (#11350514)
It not about being lazy, it's more about how can I get cross-platform GUI support that looks good without having to use C++? The answer seems to be html these days, unfortunately.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by creshal on Friday March 25, 2016 @05:07AM (#11359120)
And even Qt is shifting to using Chromium web views to supplant their native widgets.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by krylon on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @03:41PM (#11347576)
On most workloads typical desktop users run (there are many exceptions, of course, but in terms of numbers of people, those are in the minority), the computational speed of the CPU is not a limiting factor any more. I/O, amount of RAM and probably memory bandwidth are far more important; on a typical mid-range desktop machine running Windows, Office and some line-of-business application, I/O completely dominates, at least from what I have observed working as a sysadmin / helpdesk monkey.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by TheOtherHobbes on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @08:38PM (#11349651)
MS Office: yes. Content creation: no.

3D rendering, video editing, and music production all need as many cycles as you can afford, and then some.

VR and all those AI/ML technologies waiting around the corner are going to be even more greedy.

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by krylon on Thursday March 24, 2016 @12:43AM (#11350631)
That is true.

At work, our CAD people use Autodesk Inventor heavily, and that thing will happily gobble up all the CPU cycles one can throw at it. (It it the one example I have first-hand experience with.)

What I meant was that for most users of desktop PCs in an office environment, a faster CPU is not going to make much of a difference in overall system performance. (I might be a little sore because at work, users will sometimes complain there computer is too slow and then demand a new one with an i7, and then I have to explain to them why that is not going to help, while a RAM upgrade and an SSD are going to make a big difference.)

But you are right, there are plenty of examples where there is no such thing as "fast enough". ;-)

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by vanderZwan on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @02:11PM (#11346837)
I blame the latter on language expressiveness more than anything else. Here's two pieces of C++ code; one "clean", one fast, taken from [0]:

    void blur(const Image &in, Image &blurred) {
        Image tmp(in.width(), in.height());
        for (int y = 0; y < in.height(); y++){
            for (int x = 0; x < in.width(); x++){
                tmp(x, y) = (in(x-1, y) + in(x, y) + in(x+1, y))/3;
            }
        }
        for (int y = 0; y < in.height(); y++){
            for (int x = 0; x < in.width(); x++){
                blurred(x, y) = (tmp(x, y-1) + tmp(x, y) + tmp(x, y+1))/3;
            }
        }
    }
The optimised-for-speed version (order of magnitude difference):

    void fast_blur(const Image &in, Image &blurred) {
        m128i one_third = _mm_set1_epi16(21846);
        #pragma omp parallel for
        for (int yTile = 0; yTile < in.height(); yTile += 32) {
            m128i a, b, c, sum, avg;
            m128i tmp[(256/8)*(32+2)];
            for (int xTile = 0; xTile < in.width(); xTile += 256) {
                m128i *tmpPtr = tmp;
                for (int y = -1; y < 32+1; y++) {
                    const uint16_t *inPtr = &(in(xTile, yTile+y));
                    for (int x = 0; x < 256; x += 8) {
                        a = _mm_loadu_si128(( m128i*)(inPtr-1));
                        b = _mm_loadu_si128(( m128i*)(inPtr+1));
                        c = _mm_load_si128(( m128i*)(inPtr));
                        sum = _mm_add_epi16(_mm_add_epi16(a, b), c);
                        avg = _mm_mulhi_epi16(sum, one_third);
                        _mm_store_si128(tmpPtr++, avg);
                        inPtr += 8;
                    }
                }
                tmpPtr = tmp;
                for (int y = 0; y < 32; y++) {
                    m128i *outPtr = ( m128i *)(&(blurred(xTile, yTile+y)));
                    for (int x = 0; x < 256; x += 8) {
                        a = _mm_load_si128(tmpPtr+(2*256)/8);
                        b = _mm_load_si128(tmpPtr+256/8);
                        c = _mm_load_si128(tmpPtr++);
                        sum = _mm_add_epi16(_mm_add_epi16(a, b), c);
                        avg = _mm_mulhi_epi16(sum, one_third);
                        _mm_store_si128(outPtr++, avg);
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
I don't know about you, but that looks like an error prone maintenance disaster waiting to happen.

And, just for comparison, Halide code that produces results as fast as the second code:

    Func halide_blur(Func in) {
        Func tmp, blurred;
        Var x, y, xi, yi;

        // The algorithm
        tmp(x, y) = (in(x-1, y) + in(x, y) + in(x+1, y))/3;
        blurred(x, y) = (tmp(x, y-1) + tmp(x, y) + tmp(x, y+1))/3;

        // The schedule
        blurred.tile(x, y, xi, yi, 256, 32).vectorize(xi, 8).parallel(y);
        tmp.chunk(x).vectorize(x, 8);

        return blurred;
}

(this is kind of a weird coincidence; last time I replied to you I mentioned Halide[1] as well)

[0] http://people.csail.mit.edu/jrk/halide12/halide12.pdf

[1] http://halide-lang.org/

Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by pcwalton on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @02:44PM (#11347124)
Definitely, we've failed in programming language design as well. The biggest problem is that we keep sticking with C++ :)
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by AKrumbach on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @03:28PM (#11347462)

  (defun language-choice (developer) 
    (if (> (developer-hipness developer) (developer-experience developer)) (lang-du-jour)
      (if (developer-scared-of developer 'parenthesis)
        (c-family-language)
        (lisp-family-language))))
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by vanderZwan on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @03:21PM (#11347412)
You work in Rust, right? How would you express the above in that language?
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by pcwalton on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @05:18PM (#11348336)
SIMD is a work in progress, but we have the foundations laid for a much more ergonomic approach: http://huonw.github.io/blog/2015/08/simd-in-rust/
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by Zardoz84 on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @06:21PM (#11348742)
Switch to DLang
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by creshal on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @04:02PM (#11347720)
When graphics are a bottleneck it's usually easier and cheaper to pop an entry-level graphics card than to throw out or replace the whole computer (unless it's a laptop). 3-4 years old low-end graphics cards still beat Iris Pro.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by seanp2k2 on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @07:11PM (#11349082)
Yeah, even though Iris is "good enough for light gaming", integrated still really lags behind dedicated GPUs in how smooth even a desktop experience is.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by beeboop on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @11:15AM (#11345205)
I am actually part of that camp. I have a i3570k and recently did an entire system upgrade including changing from full tower to mini ITX. The only real problem was the selection of mini ITX motherboards for my older socket type is pretty poor. But I'm now Oculus ready with only a minor CPU overclock despite my CPU being pretty old.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by dmoy on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @12:21PM (#11345829)
Yea I still keep waiting to upgrade my 2600k, but at this point I think all the other parts will physically break before I need to. It's like 10-20% slower than a chip 5 years newer, big woop.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by seanp2k2 on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @07:16PM (#11349131)
Same here. It's hard to want to upgrade a 2500k stable at 4.6ghz on air with no overvolting. Got it right when it came out. OTOH, starting with a Radeon 6870 then later adding a second for crossfire and Bitcoin mining when that was profitable still barely give me the power to play the newest Rainbow 6 on low everything @1920x1200 while keeping >30FPS min on Win10. I'm personally waiting for the new GPUs to come later this year before upgrading, then seeing if Oculus or Vive has better game support at that time.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by kevinnk on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @03:01PM (#11347261)
The 2600k cost about $350 new in 2011. For the same amount of money you could get a 5820K which is about 1.5x faster than the 2600k (or to put it in your terms, the 2600k is 52% slower). Still probably not worth it, but I looked up the numbers and might as well post them.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by oofabz on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @03:41PM (#11347573)
If the 5820k is 1.5x faster, doesn't that mean the 2600k is 33% slower, not 52%?
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by kevinnk on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @04:35PM (#11347996)
Oh, yes good catch. The 2600k is (12991 - 8520) / 12991 = 34% slower. That's what I get for not rereading before posting...
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by creshal on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @12:29PM (#11345911)
Overclock by 20% aaaand done.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by hinkley on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @09:17PM (#11349836)
If they drag their feet long enough eventually ARM will catch up, right?
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by ISL on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:18AM (#11344644)
Many of the other things Intel has done have been somewhat impossible too.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by avs733 on Thursday March 24, 2016 @11:01PM (#11358250)
I would argue that it isn't just Intel but all of the indsutry. They do things that seem impossible on a regular basis.
Re:Intel Kills “Tick-Tock” by DanielBMarkham on Wednesday March 23, 2016 @10:20AM (#11344677)
Sensitive to nearby farms? That sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?