1000 core chip that runs on AA batteries!

[tServo]

They claim it consumes 7 tenths of a watt executing 115 billion instructions/sec.
Interesting, not from a practical standpoint but to shows what's possible and maybe on the horizon. It sure would be the bomb, tho, to put several of these to work on our stuff.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/worlds-...processor-chip

It looks like they cut corners on the design all over the place ( cache, instruction set,
FP thruput ( single precision only, of course), but still ......

[science_man_88]

okay that's about 6.086956 picojoules per instruction by my math so at full instruction speed in theory I get about 10.834782 joules used per second ( aka watts) but other than running multiple tests LL isn't parallelizable so it's only use might be TF or some other thing done in parallel.

[airsquirrels]

FFT multiplication is (sort of) paralizable. Thus the good performance of clLucas/CUDALucas, etc.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

okay that's about 6.086956 picojoules per instruction by my math so at full instruction speed in theory I get about 10.834782 joules used per second ( aka watts) but other than running multiple tests LL isn't parallelizable so it's only use might be TF or some other thing done in parallel.

Do you really believe that figure?

The raw data is 0.7W and 115e9 instructions per second. All we can take away from that is that the power draw lies between 0.75 and 0.65W, with the performance lying between 114.5e9 and 115.5e9 ips.

Thus all we can conclude is that the energy per instruction lies somewhere between 0.65/115.5e9 and 0.75/114.5 pJ, or between 5.6pJ and 6.6pJ.

IOW, there's a good chance that not even the first digit you quote is correct. Why, then, do you state nine digits? That amount of precision is total BS.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by xilman

Do you really believe that figure?

The raw data is 0.7W and 115e9 instructions per second. All we can take away from that is that the power draw lies between 0.75 and 0.65W, with the performance lying between 114.5e9 and 115.5e9 ips.

Thus all we can conclude is that the energy per instruction lies somewhere between 0.65/115.5e9 and 0.75/114.5 pJ, or between 5.6pJ and 6.6pJ.

IOW, there's a good chance that not even the first digit you quote is correct. Why, then, do you state nine digits? That amount of precision is total BS.

partly because I was typing it from a calculator. also I think you'll find that based on your own calculations, that 6 shows as the first digit in your range about 7 out of 11 times.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

partly because I was typing it from a calculator. also I think you'll find that based on your own calculations, that 6 shows as the first digit in your range about 7 out of 11 times.

You are clearly too young, or perhaps simply too inexperienced, to understand experimental error.

Rather than giving six decimal points of meaningless precision, give a +/- on the measure.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by chalsall

You are clearly too young, or perhaps simply too inexperienced, to understand experimental error.

Rather than giving six decimal points of meaningless precision, give a +/- on the measure.

I was just doing straight math from the given numbers. doing it from xilman's range of 5.6-6.5 pJ it gives 9.97 watts to 11.7 watts at full power rounded to 3 places.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

I was just doing straight math from the given numbers.

And that was your mistake.

[bgbeuning]

Just think about the RAM bottleneck ...

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by bgbeuning

Just think about the RAM bottleneck ...

and they transfer data directly to each other rather than using a pooled memory area that can become a bottleneck for data.

so they don't rely on ram.

[Antonio]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

so they don't rely on ram.

So what magic do they use to transfer instructions and data into/out of the processors?