bit about transistor cost

On 07/12/2021 23:21, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> tirsdag den 7. december 2021 kl. 23.32.09 UTC+1 skrev gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
>> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:14:43 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> Likewise with PC's. I'm in the market for a new one right now but I'm
>>> not convinced that any of them offer single threaded performance that is
>>> 3x better than the ancient i7-3770 I have now. That has always been my
>>> upgrade heuristic (used to be every 3 years). Clock speeds have maxed
>>> out and now they are adding more cores (many of which are idle most of
>>> the time). Performance cores and efficient cores is the new selling
>>> point. It looks on paper like the i5-12600K might just pass this test.
>> I bought an i5 machine and it was a real dog. I said something to the effect that they ran out of ways to add transistors to improve the speed of CPUs a few years ago and someone listed a number of architectural improvements they've added for a 20-30% boost.
>>
>> It has been quite some time since you could expect significant speed improvements by adding transistors or faster clock speeds. I think it was the Pentium 4 where the clock rate peaked at about 3 GHz by adding pipeline stages for shorter gate delays. But the cost of pipeline stalls pretty much mitigated that advantage. I believe people could overclock the Pentium 3 to run faster than the 4.

It would have needed serious water cooling to overclock a Pentium 3. My 
P3 portable actually damaged the surface finish of a table when left on 
power running a particularly heavy simulation overnight. Used on a lap 
at full speed it would almost certainly have resulted in serious burns!

> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-3770-vs-Intel-i9-12900KF-vs-Intel-Pentium-4-3.60GHz/896vs4611vs1079

Therein lies the problem. The stuff I am developing only cares about 
single thread performance so by moving from the i7-3770 to the latest 
and greatest i9-12900 I get just twice the speed for 4x the power used. 
It would be a lot more cost effective to buy another 3770 or 4770 (they 
are practically giving them away now as desktops have fallen out of 
fashion).

Curiously I can see what turns out to be a step backwards in the i7-3770 
from my portable which is an i7-2670QM. The latter can correctly handle 
sincos simultaneous evaluation without a pipeline stall in my algorithm 
but the go faster 3770 cannot. I had assumed until now that it was a 
later chip with a lower number until I just looked it up.

It seems some of the trick used in the slower clocked low power portable 
CPUs either don't make it into the desktop CPUs or are inapplicable.

The i5-12600K looks like it might just be good enough. Improvements in 
the pipelining, sincos simultaneous evaluation and SSE extensions for 
tough floating point problems might just be enough to push it over 3x. 
On paper its floating point performance looks OK.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:56:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> John Larkin wrote: 
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 20:36:17 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> >> On 12/6/2021 19:42, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> >>> https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/the-rising-tide-of-semiconductor 
> >>> 
> >>> I've also heard that the cost of one next-gen euv scanner is well 
> >>> over $200M, and that the design and mask set for a high-end chip 
> >>> costs a billion dollars. 
> >>> 
> >>> We just don't need few-nm chips. 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Gradually electronics design without having access to a silicon 
> >> factory becomes useless, hopefully the process is slow enough so we 
> >> don't see that in full. 
> >> Sort of like nowadays you can somehow master an internal combustion 
> >> engine if you have a lathe and a milling machine but you have no 
> >> chance to make it comparable to those car makers make, not to speak 
> >> about cost. 
> > 
> > Some things have got good enough. Hammers, spoons, beds, LED lights, 
> > microwave ovens. Moore's Law can't go on forever, and is probably at 
> > or in same cases past its practical limit.
> Emissions requirements used to get tighter every year until it served no 
> purpose to make 1000 cars emit less than one BBQ. Then they started 
> subsidizing EV's. When everyone has an EV - or actually when no one has 
> an ICE and a few have EV's and most have to take a bus - then they'll 
> force us to change to something else.
> > We don't need 3 nm chips to text and twitter. I can't imagine my cell 
> > phone needing to be better hardware.
> First there was a century of advances in transportation, then it was 
> communication. When something is good enough we have to find something 
> else to make better and nobody has found it yet. 

Wow.  You live in such a defeatist world.  Life must suck when you think it's pointless to try to improve it.  I suppose you don't bother to vote, or is there a "surrender" party where you are? 

-- 

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209 

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 11:31:03 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> 
> The giant advances will be in biology. 

How about medicine?  Certainly there's room there for advances.  I would much prefer to die quietly in my sleep at 95 than to die at 70 of pancreatic cancer.  

So if we froze advancement of semiconductors where they are today and put all that money saved into medical research...  Try to use what little imagination you have to picture the advances we could achieve!  Maybe even Father Brown could use his head to help. Maybe we could find a vaccine for Covid!  Oh, wait, we have those!  The problem is we can't get people to take the vaccine because they don't believe in medical science. 

Here's a good page to show how close we are to reaching herd immunity world wide.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/

It says in another 5 months 75% of the world will have received at least one shot.  Even one shot helps to keep the hospitals from getting overcrowded with victims. 

-- 

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick C wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:56:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso
> wrote:
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> We don't need 3 nm chips to text and twitter. I can't imagine my
>>> cell phone needing to be better hardware.
>> First there was a century of advances in transportation, then it was
>> communication. When something is good enough we have to find
>> something else to make better and nobody has found it yet.
>
> Wow.  You live in such a defeatist world.  Life must suck when you
> think it's pointless to try to improve it.  I suppose you don't
> bother to vote, or is there a "surrender" party where you are?

I didn't say anything or anyone was defeated. To say that significant 
advances will happen in an unexpected area is obviously not defeatist. 
John's reply suggested that he understood what I meant.


-- 
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon! 

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:00:09 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Rick C wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:56:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso 
> > wrote: 
> >> John Larkin wrote: 
> >>> We don't need 3 nm chips to text and twitter. I can't imagine my 
> >>> cell phone needing to be better hardware. 
> >> First there was a century of advances in transportation, then it was 
> >> communication. When something is good enough we have to find 
> >> something else to make better and nobody has found it yet. 
> > 
> > Wow. You live in such a defeatist world. Life must suck when you 
> > think it's pointless to try to improve it. I suppose you don't 
> > bother to vote, or is there a "surrender" party where you are?
>
> I didn't say anything or anyone was defeated. To say that significant 
> advances will happen in an unexpected area is obviously not defeatist. 

Significant advances are taking place in biology and medicine right now. You might have noticed that we got a vaccine against Covid-19 in one year, when the previous fastest delivery had been four years.

> John's reply suggested that he understood what I meant.

John reply suggested that he wasn't aware that they were going on at moment, which makes him the same kind of ignoramus.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Rick C wrote:
>>> It was never about performance, it was just the number of
>>> transistors doubling every 18 to 24 months.

> All of that may be true,  but Moore's observation was simply about
> the trend in the number of transistors on a die.  That's all.

Yes but his observation was that it doubled every year, or else the 8080 
would have had only 250 transistors.


-- 
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon! 

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:20:50 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Rick C wrote: 
> >>> It was never about performance, it was just the number of 
> >>> transistors doubling every 18 to 24 months.
>
> > All of that may be true, but Moore's observation was simply about 
> > the trend in the number of transistors on a die. That's all.
>
> Yes but his observation was that it doubled every year, or else the 8080 
> would have had only 250 transistors.

It appeared in 1974, and had 4500 transistors. Moore made his observation in 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law#/media/File:Moore's_Law_Transistor_Count_1970-2020.png

puts the 8080 bang on the trend line. Tom Del Rosso clearly doesn't understand that it wasn't a particularly precise "law"  - more an observation about the way economics was driving the semi-conductor industry, because everything that let you squeeze more transistors onto a die cost a lot of capital investment. Curiously, most of these investments on paid off.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so" (Bozo paraphrased)

Bozo Bill Sloman is a chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

-- 
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:4007:: with SMTP id kd7mr12483731qvb.52.1639017533207;        Wed, 08 Dec 2021 18:38:53 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:5f50:: with SMTP id h16mr2990998ybm.624.1639017532968; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 18:38:52 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 18:38:52 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <sorp5r$108$1@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.213.69.109; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.213.69.109
> References: <glisqg92dhhngn1nml74ijqhhtidaskj7q@4ax.com> <soll72$70i$1@dont-email.me> <r6msqgp1cnej3vjkedhnim05la0jlcpq4e@4ax.com> <solmrq$ih2$1@dont-email.me> <solvl9$kl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4adb0984-97cf-4d51-8105-420e0abffb87n@googlegroups.com> <739ab1ac-c9a7-3efb-9861-efa1b0a9e0bb@electrooptical.net> <c669322a-34e4-496c-a053-f41f46c73a22n@googlegroups.com> <sorp5r$108$1@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <662b207f-a5a5-4b49-9fb7-1df1c8e378dfn@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: bit about transistor cost
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 02:38:53 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 26
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654411
> 
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:20:50 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Rick C wrote: 
>> >>> It was never about performance, it was just the number of 
>> >>> transistors doubling every 18 to 24 months.
>>
>> > All of that may be true, but Moore's observation was simply about 
>> > the trend in the number of transistors on a die. That's all.
>>
>> Yes but his observation was that it doubled every year, or else the 8080
>  
>> would have had only 250 transistors.
> 
> It appeared in 1974, and had 4500 transistors. Moore made his observation in 1965.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law#/media/File:Moore's_Law_Transistor_Count_1970-2020.png
> 
> puts the 8080 bang on the trend line. Tom Del Rosso clearly doesn't understand that it wasn't a particularly precise "law"  - more an observation about the way economics was driving the semi-conductor industry, because everything that let you squeeze more transistors onto a die cost a lot of capital investment. Curiously, most of these investments on paid off.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
> 
> 
> 

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bill Sloman) 

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo paraphrased) 

Bozo Bill Sloman is a chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with... 

-- 
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a37:b3c7:: with SMTP id c190mr3597743qkf.730.1638929743893; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 18:15:43 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:ba0e:: with SMTP id t14mr56022395ybg.49.1638929743624; Tue, 07 Dec 2021 18:15:43 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:15:43 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <sono48$6cj$2@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.213.69.109; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.213.69.109
> References: <glisqg92dhhngn1nml74ijqhhtidaskj7q@4ax.com> <soll72$70i$1@dont-email.me> <r6msqgp1cnej3vjkedhnim05la0jlcpq4e@4ax.com> <solmrq$ih2$1@dont-email.me> <solvl9$kl2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a8f947f5-d0eb-4aab-ad8f-4254c19dcaccn@googlegroups.com> <sono48$6cj$2@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <46d69e4f-d5a2-4cde-9ba4-6a890934547bn@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: bit about transistor cost
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2021 02:15:43 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 41
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654312
> 
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 12:39:28 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> On 12/7/2021 3:25, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
>> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 12:14:43 PM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:
>  
>> >> On 06/12/2021 19:04, Dimiter_Popoff wrote: 
>> >>> On 12/6/2021 20:47, John Larkin wrote: 
>> >>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 20:36:17 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
>  wrote: 
>> >>>>> On 12/6/2021 19:42, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
>> > 
>> > <snip> 
>> > 
>> >> It may yet swing the other way when simulations are so good that the c
> onversion to masks is essentially error free. 
>> > 
>> > That happened around 1990. The electron beam tester I was working on ba
> ck then was the next generation of a unit which famously trimmed three months off the development time of the Motorola 68k processor chip set. 
>> > 
>> > The project wasn't canned because out machine didn't work - we did get 
> it working quite well enough to demonstrate that it was an order of magnitude faster than it's predecessor - but because simulation had got good enough that most mask sets produced chips that worked. 
>> > 
>> > The older, slower, machines were quite fast enough to check out that th
> e simulation software was predicting what actually happened on the chip and that killed our market. 
>> >
>> It is a shame such an advanced machinery has been lost (or did it 
>> survive for some niche applications?).
> 
> It didn't  or at least not that I know of. We had a couple of working prototypes, but they did depend on Gigabit Logic's GaAs integrated circuits, and Gigabit got merged with a couple of other GaAs suppliers at the same time, partly because they couldn't produce the logic with a decent  yield. If the machine had gone into production it would probably would have had to be re-worked within a year or so to use Motorola/ON-Semiconductor ECLinPS parts for the quick bits (which would probably have performed better in consequence).
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
> 
> 

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so" (Bozo paraphrased)

Bozo Bill Sloman is a chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

-- 
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1a0b:: with SMTP id bk11mr10539167qkb.513.1639015766526;        Wed, 08 Dec 2021 18:09:26 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1107:: with SMTP id o7mr3057986ybu.120.1639015766297; Wed, 08 Dec 2021 18:09:26 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 18:09:26 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <soqrr2$6t3$1@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.213.69.109; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.213.69.109
> References: <glisqg92dhhngn1nml74ijqhhtidaskj7q@4ax.com> <soll72$70i$1@dont-email.me> <r6msqgp1cnej3vjkedhnim05la0jlcpq4e@4ax.com> <sopae0$m4n$1@dont-email.me> <1070efbb-5715-4146-b1b4-9e5a28f3ac03n@googlegroups.com> <soqrr2$6t3$1@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <bcc492af-27e2-41f4-9e93-eb249fabe80bn@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: bit about transistor cost
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 02:09:26 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 26
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654408
> 
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:00:09 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Rick C wrote: 
>> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 10:56:54 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso 
>> > wrote: 
>> >> John Larkin wrote: 
>> >>> We don't need 3 nm chips to text and twitter. I can't imagine my 
>> >>> cell phone needing to be better hardware. 
>> >> First there was a century of advances in transportation, then it was 
>> >> communication. When something is good enough we have to find 
>> >> something else to make better and nobody has found it yet. 
>> > 
>> > Wow. You live in such a defeatist world. Life must suck when you 
>> > think it's pointless to try to improve it. I suppose you don't 
>> > bother to vote, or is there a "surrender" party where you are?
>>
>> I didn't say anything or anyone was defeated. To say that significant 
>> advances will happen in an unexpected area is obviously not defeatist. 
> 
> Significant advances are taking place in biology and medicine right now. You might have noticed that we got a vaccine against Covid-19 in one year, when the previous fastest delivery had been four years.
> 
>> John's reply suggested that he understood what I meant.
> 
> John reply suggested that he wasn't aware that they were going on at moment, which makes him the same kind of ignoramus.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
> 
> 
>