Murphy's Law
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
I didn't expect it to end so soon.
The "supercomputer in a smartphone" dream is over.
What happened?
>>52692475
The thing that could have gone wrong, did go wrong.
>>52692475
>murphy's law
>>52692475
>What happened?
the laws of physics got around to saying "fuck off"
remember we're at the point where transistor features are like two dozen atoms across
>>52692914
Well let's get it down to one dozen atoms across, fucking step up
>>52692475
We hit the thermal limits of silicon. When scientists figure out how to mass produce graphene chips or some other miraculous material, the whole exponential curve of improvement will start up again.
>>52692969
at those scales you run into quantum shit that you can't work around. For instance, the uncertainty principle and quantum tunneling mean that some electrons will flow straight through that wall of atoms. Literally just appear on the other side. We're just about at the hard limit for as small as it's physically possible to make an electric circuit. You might as well tell them to step it up and invent warp drive.
>>52693033
That sounds spooky.
>>52693033
Why not just make processors bigger? Aren't they tiny as fuck?
>>52692969
theres this thing called 'electrons have never given a flying fuck about you & will jump ship with the slightest provocation'
the smaller the pipe, the leakier. eventually youre just etching in premade short circuits
>>52692475
You didn't actually believe /g/ when they said stupid shit like
>Look at how fast ARM is developing it'll overtake x86 next year!!!!111
did you?
>>52693052
I've asked myself this for a while anon
>>52693069
The ARM processor in the iPad Pro is faster than an i5, so yes
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2015/11/12/ipad-pro-geekbench/
>>52693102
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006268/tablets/tested-why-the-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html
>>52693052
>Why not just make processors bigger?
because electricity obeys the cosmic speed limit. Light (and therefore electricity) travels just under one foot in a nanosecond. So at four gigahertz, a signal can travel at most three inches before the next processor cycle starts. You also need some slack time for the signals to arrive and for the chip to assume a consistent state for that cycle. Make a chip bigger and you'll decrease the maximum clock, as you'll have to ensure that signals can travel from one part to the other in time. (for present chip sizes, the absolute speed limit is about 8-10 GHz, and no crazy LN2 cooling or overvolting or anything will push you beyond it.)
Also, remember Fermi? The GTX 480? With it's 1.3% yields and 300-watt power dissipation? This is what happens when you make chips bigger and bigger. They already dissipate more heat per unit of area than the nozzle of a Saturn V's rocket engines have to. The greater leakage current at very very small process sizes only makes this worse.
>>52692475
>Supercomputer in a smartphone
Compared to 10 years ago we've reached that, what makes supercomputer a supercomputer is how it performs next to a regular consumer computer. So no, in 10 years we'll never have phones that are 10 fold faster than the computers in 10 years.
>>52693190
>implying
A home desktop from 2006 is still better than a 2016 smartphone.
what about quantum computing
>>52693214
It is
What if we just make ourselves bigger? If we increase our size with bio engineering, then Moore's Law continues to go in the other exponential direction even if the tech can't get any smaller.
>>52693169
So why not make them more efficient at what they do instead of giving them bigger muscles? Like a work smarter, not harder kind of thing? Does that even make sense in this context?
>>52693169
>slack time
OR, bitches
and you niggas keep saying this shit is useless
try telling me 6 figure salary that
>>52693128
Good points, it's still gaining 20-25% performance per generation with better energy efficiency so I'd be surprised if it isn't genuinely equal one day
>>52693272
It'll probably hit the same wall first. We are already making ARM processors at 14/16nm.
>>52693169
>52693169
Doesn't that mean we could double the size of the chip and still have a maximum clock of 4-5ghz. Sure that wouldn't be an achievable speed, but 3-3.6ghz could be?
In regards to cooling and power use, sure it's not practical but it's possible.
>>52693169
Show HN: I'm founding a startup that'll disrupt electricity
>>52693263
That's what you've been getting the past five or so years. Ever since Sandy Bridge Intel couldn't really push the performance higher by more than 2-3%, clock for clock, and that clock couldn't be pushed higher than it already was. This was despite moving to smaller processes more than once, and refining them. So yes, they most certainly are improving efficiency. But it isn't going to improve much faster than that anymore. It's certainly not going to double performance every 1-2 years like Moore's Law went.
>>52692475
were you actually that stupid to think you'd get current day supercomputers in your phones anytime soon?
![katniss[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/YSEfKMt.gif "katniss[1].gif")
>less transistors per dollar in 2015
>we have literally gone backward
>that feel when you have just witnessed the peak of human technological advancement
>we are now heading downhill
I never thought the consumerization of technology could get this bad...
>>52693169
What's wrong with 1GHz processor that can do much more at once?
>>52693307
They make chips of that size already, every Titan has one in it. Yields still aren't good, the reason that GF ?70 cards have that "like the top model, but with a few things disabled" is because the majority of dies made are defective. They design them to be able to laser off the not-working parts.
and they're thermally limited at clock speeds far lower than that. You could probably run one at 3.something GHz. You'd have to find a way to keep its temps under control while it dissipates at least 500 watts though.
>Murphy
It's Moore's.
>>52693169
>>52693033
I love when someone who actually knows the physics comes to talk about it
thanks anon
>>52693393
>forecast
>actual
>actually thinking they will go backwards
>>52693420
God I didn't even notice
I had no idea what that first poster was talking about
>>52693393
Holy shit, chill out. Are you literally so big of an autist that such a slight change upsets you so much? There will be some other breakthrough.
>>52693397
Because parallelism is very hard and there are lots of real world scenarios where it's impossible, where calculation Y depends on the results of calculation X and can't start until X is completer, no matter how many cores you have sitting idle. GPUs are massively parallel because the particular thing they do happens to be a field that is "embarassingly parallel". You can also do it for servers, since you can split, for instance, the SSL load of many web connections over many cores fairly easily.
But for the stuff most people do on personal computers, definitely including the CPU side of gaming, there just isn't a good way to extract parallelism. This is why no gamers put 20-core Xeons in their rigs.
>>52693450
Its not a "slight" change, its literally a regression. We went BACKWARDS.
The same amount of money would have bought you something faster last year, this year cpus got slower.
>>52693489
No, you cuck, the price of higher performing CPU's got more expensive than previous high preforming CPU's. Notice how AMD haven't done anything for a few years, that's definitely a big factor
We need InGaAs or graphene.
>>52693489
CPUs have been fast enough for everything normies do with them since the Core 2 Duo came out, way back on 65nm in 2007. Everything since then has been us riding on the gravy train as it coasts to a halt.
>>52693522
I'm too waiting for the graphen meme to kick off
>>52692475
That's Ohm's Law, you idiot.
>>52693534
I think I read somerhing about UK selling graphene bulbs. I want them in my CPUs and filters though.
>>52693518
No, the price of transistors got HIGHER. Meaning, yes, maybe the faster CPU now is faster, but you could have bout a 2 CPU faster computer last year than the price of the latest intel extreme.
For every dollar you spend today, you could have gotten faster parts a year ago.
>>52693423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4
enjoy
>>52693584
That'll change with zen
>>52692475
>The "supercomputer in a smartphone" dream is over.
Aren't modern smartphones much more powerful than old supercomputers?
idk about smartphones, but your desktop has more floating-point power than was available on the entire earth in 1985. Think about that.
>>52693662
Modern smartphones are about as powerful as 80s-era super computers.
>>52693763
If only we had a time machine so we could go back and cuck all the scientists with an iPhone
>>52692475
>3d chips
>Carbon nano tubes
>Graphene and other 2d materials
>Photonics
We'll be fine.
>>52693763
>Modern smartphones are about as powerful as 80s-era super computers.
what the fuck am I reading
>>52692475
>What happened?
Lack of competition means that there's no point in pushing the tech we have. And the performance we have, it is enough for most purposes.
>>52693397
>What's wrong with 1GHz processor that can do much more at once?
They exist and are called GPGPUs.
>>52693909
Not in pure flops but in total computational workload over time.
>>52693033
Fully depleted and insulated channels lock electrons in place. A FinFET with a fully depleted channel is a quantum well FET, and aside from leakage due to manufacturing variability there is no issue with electron tunneling.
>>52693169
>hey already dissipate more heat per unit of area than the nozzle of a Saturn V's rocket engines have to.
You're taking this from a very old and hilariously inaccurate intel slide. It isn't true. Chips today are dealing with less leakage current than ever, that is the whole point of moving away from planar gates. FinFET, double gate, TriGate, GAA, III-Vs, trench FETs, etc, all of them exist so that we can reduce leakage as gate length and area scaling decrease.
>>52693423
You should retract that gratitude.
>>52693090
Its called a server anon.
The end of Moores law might be here or it might not. It doesn't matter. If progress on transistors is over then we will increase computational power per dollar on another paradigm.
Also, we don't even need more computation. The current rank 1 supercomputer has 9/10'ths the estimated computational capacity of the human brain. An AGI is the last invention we need to make. The hardware is here, it's up to the software now.
>>52693596
This faggot needs to work on his rhetoric. His speech pattern is annoying as fuck.
>Not knowing the K 12370G is a graphene chip running 6nm architecture.
>>52694173
I agree, but it's informative enough that I don't care so much.
People spoke like that when they had to do presentations in my engineering classes too.
>>52692475
>supercomputer in a smartphone
An ipad 2 is more powerful than a Cray 2.
>>52692475
>Murphy's law
>>52692475
>murphy's law
i see you enjoyed redditstellar a lot
>>52694106
fair enough
>>52693102
Ha! No.
>>52694250
You have to be a tremendous newfag to associate an old as fuck adage with some movie.
By trying to make fun of OP you just outed yourself as the real redditor here.
![relaxed-old-man-laughing-outdoors-15741309[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8rgdM94.jpg "relaxed-old-man-laughing-outdoors-15741309[1].jpg")
>>52693102
>geekbench
>>52693662
The average smart phone is more powerful than all of the computers we used to land on the moon.
And the best people can figure out to do with all that power is throw birds around
>>52694173
>The current rank 1 supercomputer has 9/10'ths the estimated computational capacity of the human brain
Yes, because a fucking 24 megawatt computer is comparable to the brain. The hardware is totally there.
>>52693020
I read somewhere they were going to make them with man made diamond rather than silicone
>>52693489
this years cpus got way more power efficient too
>>52695777
they're literally just as efficient as they were in 2014. almost absolutely zero has changed.
>>52692475
its really crazy just thinking about it. knowing that at this point, there's just no way for processors to get any better/faster except for a few modifications/optimizations maybe. unless theres a major breakthrough such as quantum computers, we will be stuck at what we have today. And I cant stress this enough. WE ARE STUCK AND WONT GET BETTER PROCESSORS ANYTIME SOON (and gpus? I assume they are built on the same principles).
they'll be doing further improvements to SSDs but that'll come to an hold too real soon too i would guess.
>>52695871
>almost absolutely zero has changed
congrats you just invented calculus
