Path to 2 nm May Not Be Worth It

Re:Path to 2 nm May Not Be Worth It by baybal2 on Monday August 27, 2018 @11:27AM (#17852042)

(2) you run it twice as slow, but compensate it with the fact that now you have 2x the amount of devices

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Path to 2 nm May Not Be Worth It by jcranmer on Monday August 27, 2018 @11:38AM (#17852101)

And you look at Amdahl's Law and realize that your 3D chip literally can't be better in performance than your 2D one if you do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Path to 2 nm May Not Be Worth It by baybal2 on Monday August 27, 2018 @01:30PM (#17852890)

Interesting standpoint. The current issue with very large pipelines, besides the obvious issue of keeping them IO satiated, is the distance in between branchings in code. In other words the degree to which extend you can "flatten" the computation timewise.

Now imagine, thanks to 3D cells, you now magically get double the number of registers. How much efforts do you think you need to spend to double the amount of loops running in parallel?

[ Parent | on HN ]