| Author |
Message |
Paul A. Clayton
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject:
Performance from process tech.? |
|
|
Figures are sometimes given for the fraction of performance
improvements that come from improvements in process technology,
but how are these values computed? In particular, what baseline
is used to compare 'process-only' with real implementations? (My
guess is that transistor switching speed is used, ignoring real
constraints that designers must overcome and the benefit of
effectively doubling area with each generation.)
ISTM that several different baselines could be reasonable. One
could use a simply scaled design. This would make apparent the
benefit from small but significant effort in real instances of
design scaling, but seems unfair in not only ignoring the
effective area doubling but also the 'normal' effort of a
from-scratch design effort targeting that process.
Alternately one could use an intelligently scaled design
(weakly simulating a from-scratch effort of equal complexity).
This has the advantage of having real data points for single
process transitions (and the increase in cache size usually
associated with such transitions could be considered part of the
effective area increase advantage offered by the transition).
One could simulate a design of similar complexity (estimated as
years*(persons**0.5) [accounting for an O(p**2) communication
burden]) but twice the transistor count. This has the problem of
tending to simplify the design at each transition to use up the
additional area with the same design effort.
None of these account for the increase in actual die size brought
with improvements in process technology (in particular increases
in wafer size) nor for the increase in production volume brought
by higher performance/price nor for the disproportionately
greater price of higher performance in the market at a given
time.
Paul A. Clayton
(a 'Dysthymicdolt' reachable at aol.com) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
del cecchi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: Performance from process tech.? |
|
|
"Paul A. Clayton" <carchreader@aol.comnomail> wrote in message
news:20050112075621.16603.00000006@mb-m16.aol.com...
| Quote: | Figures are sometimes given for the fraction of performance
improvements that come from improvements in process technology,
but how are these values computed? In particular, what baseline
is used to compare 'process-only' with real implementations? (My
guess is that transistor switching speed is used, ignoring real
constraints that designers must overcome and the benefit of
effectively doubling area with each generation.)
|
The way you do the comparison depends to some extent on why you want to
know and what you will do with the resulting data.
(gratuitous reference to American Media deleted)
One could consider something like FO4, which is the delay of a gate
(inverter? I don't remember) driving a fanout of 4 other identical
gates. No wire. One could take a "critical path" from a current design
and scale or not scale the dimensions including wire length.
| Quote: |
ISTM that several different baselines could be reasonable. One
could use a simply scaled design. This would make apparent the
benefit from small but significant effort in real instances of
design scaling, but seems unfair in not only ignoring the
effective area doubling but also the 'normal' effort of a
from-scratch design effort targeting that process.
Alternately one could use an intelligently scaled design
(weakly simulating a from-scratch effort of equal complexity).
This has the advantage of having real data points for single
process transitions (and the increase in cache size usually
associated with such transitions could be considered part of the
effective area increase advantage offered by the transition).
One could simulate a design of similar complexity (estimated as
years*(persons**0.5) [accounting for an O(p**2) communication
burden]) but twice the transistor count. This has the problem of
tending to simplify the design at each transition to use up the
additional area with the same design effort.
None of these account for the increase in actual die size brought
with improvements in process technology (in particular increases
in wafer size) nor for the increase in production volume brought
by higher performance/price nor for the disproportionately
greater price of higher performance in the market at a given
time.
Paul A. Clayton
(a 'Dysthymicdolt' reachable at aol.com)
|
Total chip performance estimates due to new process capabilities with
associated higher frequencies and larger arrays or additional
architectural features is another kettle of fish. Normally in my
experience done by a totally different group. Sort of the difference
between "how many megahertz" and "how many TPC-C"
del cecchi
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul A. Clayton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Performance from process tech.? |
|
|
In article <34m9vlF4clq3tU1@individual.net>,
"del cecchi" <dcecchi.nojunk@att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | The way you do the comparison depends to some extent on why you want to
know and what you will do with the resulting data.
(gratuitous reference to American Media deleted)
|
To generate a factoid for the process engineers to boast over
the circuit designers (as well as compiler writers and algorithm
developers)?
Such a figure might have a minor use for estimating future
trends, but it seems to mostly be a curiosity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Performance from process tech.? |
|
|
Paul A. Clayton wrote:
| Quote: | In article <34m9vlF4clq3tU1@individual.net>,
"del cecchi" <dcecchi.nojunk@att.net> wrote:
The way you do the comparison depends to some extent on why you want to
know and what you will do with the resulting data.
(gratuitous reference to American Media deleted)
To generate a factoid for the process engineers to boast over
the circuit designers (as well as compiler writers and algorithm
developers)?
Such a figure might have a minor use for estimating future
trends, but it seems to mostly be a curiosity.
Then use unloaded inverter delay. Hot damn, 10 picoseconds. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in