bit about transistor cost

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:19:01 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> "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....@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: <glisqg92dhhngn1nm...@4ax.com> <soll72$70i$1...@dont-email.me> <r6msqgp1cnej3vjke...@4ax.com> <sopae0$m4n$1...@dont-email.me> <1070efbb-5715-4146...@googlegroups.com> <soqrr2$6t3$1...@dont-email.me> 
> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 
> > MIME-Version: 1.0 
> > Message-ID: <bcc492af-27e2-41f4...@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: bit about transistor cost 
> > From: Anthony William Sloman <bill....@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's reply suggested that he wasn't aware that they were going on at moment, which makes him the same kind of ignoramus. 

<snipped all of John Doe's regular drivel>

John Doe doesn't like me, but he lacks the wit to make specific objections to what I post, so he has to drag in stuff he objected to in the past.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney 

On 08/12/21 03:56, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> 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.

Twenty years ago I told my daughter that if I was in
the same position as a kid, I would choose life sciences
as a career, rather than electronics and computing.

Even back then it was clear as day that new techniques
meant bioscience was at the same stage of evolution as
hardware was in the 60s.

That's still true, as is the concern that script
kiddies will create biological viruses just as
they created computer viruses.

On 12/6/21 1:47 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 20:36:17 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/6/2021 19:42, jlarkin@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.
> 
> We don't need 3 nm chips to text and twitter. I can't imagine my cell
> phone needing to be better hardware.
> 
> I need a dumb, last-gen FPGA that is less fancy inside but fast
> pin-to-pin. The trend is in the opposite directions.
> 
> Maybe Moore's law is running on psychological momentum, fear of
> getting behind. I think I can see that happening.
> 

There are two main forces driving consumer software development, reduced 
time-to-market by using higher levels of abstraction and trading of 
performance hits for reduced development time, vs. user irritation 
pushing back on those performance hits.

The underlying hardware is mostly irrelevant for the bulk of consumer 
applications because they don't really leverage the full capability of 
the hardware to begin with.

On 12/8/21 6:21 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> 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.
> 

There are web pages that can grind a Haswell-core Celeron N3060 with a 
2.4 Ghz boost clock, from ~5 years ago, on a netbook with 4 gigs RAM and 
SSD, plus 100 megabit internet connection to a halt all by themselves, 
no other tabs open. Example:

<https://owlcation.com/stem/I-Found-A-Pretty-Rock-On-The-Beach-And-Wondered-II>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from 
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is 
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 9 Dec 2021 06:16:50 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sos70h$ujh$6@dont-email.me>.

iViPSuiELbvo

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from 
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is 
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 9 Dec 2021 06:17:35 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sos71v$ujh$7@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

A2hWwNvD4v14

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from 
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is 
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 9 Dec 2021 06:18:55 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sos74f$ujh$8@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

0y+n+Wbukoox

On 12/7/21 5:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
> 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.

A decade ago you could overclock the crap out of a number of CPUs; 
stable clock boosts from 3.2 to 4 GHz and 25% performance gains on e.g. 
the AMD Phenom II Thuban-core weren't uncommon.

Those days are pretty much over you can't get gains like that anymore 
from overclocking. Incidentally i believe the Thuban core from circa 
2010 was the last core from AMD that was entirely hand-designed, after 
that AMD moved to tool-assisted layout.

The follow-up Bulldozer core was known to be a poor performer on single 
threaded apps, there was a lawsuit over it.

On 12/9/21 5:52 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 12/8/21 6:21 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> There are web pages that can grind a Haswell-core Celeron N3060 with a 
> 2.4 Ghz boost clock, from ~5 years ago, on a netbook with 4 gigs RAM and 
> SSD, plus 100 megabit internet connection to a halt all by themselves, 
> no other tabs open. Example:
> 
> <https://owlcation.com/stem/I-Found-A-Pretty-Rock-On-The-Beach-And-Wondered-II> 
> 

Adblock helps a bunch with that page

The nym-shifting stalker Corvid/Edward/others is upset because it will 
never again troll USENET without its nyms being exposed.

Corvid perpetually proves why it must nym-shift.
Its mission, as always... annoy everybody.

see also...
=?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=b6rvid?= <bl@ckbirds.org>
=?UTF-8?B?8J+QriBDb3dzIGFyZSBOaWNlIPCfkK4=?= <nice@cows.moo>
Banders <snap@mailchute.com>
Covid-19 <always.look@message.header>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.net>
Corvid <bl@ckbirds.org>
Cows Are Nice <cows@nice.moo>
Cows are nice <moo@cows.org>
Cows are Nice <nice@cows.moo>
dogs <dogs@home.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Great Pumpkin <pumpkin@patch.net>
Jose Curvo <jcurvo@mymail.com>
Local Favorite <how2recycle@palomar.info>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Sea <freshness@coast.org>
Standard Poodle <standard@poodle.com>
triangles <build@home.com>
and others...

-- 
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: bit about transistor cost
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
> 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$2@dont-email.me> <46d69e4f-d5a2-4cde-9ba4-6a890934547bn@googlegroups.com> <sos71v$ujh$7@dont-email.me>
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <aOvsJ.184208$WrO3.166600@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 22:53:58 UTC
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 22:53:58 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 1650
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654504 free.spam:16688
> 
> The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
> <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
> 
> And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
> <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from 
>> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is 
>> CLUELESS...
> 
> And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
> incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 9 Dec 2021 06:17:35 -0000
> (UTC) in message-id <sos71v$ujh$7@dont-email.me>.
> 
> This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
> readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
> follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.
> 
> A2hWwNvD4v14
> 
> 
>