You're viewing a single thread.
The PS3 had a 128-bit CPU. Sort of. "Altivec" vector processing could split each 128-bit word into several values and operate on them simultaneously. So for example if you wanted to do 3D transformations using 32-bit numbers, you could do four of them at once, as easily as one. It doesn't make doing one any faster.
Vector processing is present in nearly every modern CPU, though. Intel's had it since the late 90s with MMX and SSE. Those just had to load registers 32 bits at a time before performing each same-instrunction-multiple-data operation.
The benefit of increasing bit depth is that you can move that data in parallel.
The downside of increasing bit depth is that you have to move that data in parallel.
To move a 32-bit number between places in a single clock cycle, you need 32 wires between two places. And you need them between any two places that will directly move a number. Routing all those wires takes up precious space inside a microchip. Indirect movement can simplify that diagram, but then each step requires a separate clock cycle. Which is fine - this is a tradeoff every CPU has made for thirty-plus years, as "pipelining." Instead of doing a whole operation all-at-once, or holding back the program while each instruction is being cranked out over several cycles, instructions get broken down into stages according to which internal components they need. The processor becomes a chain of steps: decode instruction, fetch data, do math, write result. CPUs can often "retire" one instruction per cycle, even if instructions take many cycles from beginning to end.
To move a 128-bit number between places in a single clock cycle, you need an obscene amount of space. Each lane is four times as wide and still has to go between all the same places. This is why 1990s consoles and graphics cards might advertise 256-bit interconnects between specific components, even for mundane 32-bit machines. They were speeding up one particular spot where a whole bunch of data went a very short distance between a few specific places.
Modern video cards no doubt have similar shortcuts, but that's no longer the primary way the perform ridiculous quantities of work. Mostly they wait.
CPUs are linear. CPU design has sunk eleventeen hojillion dollars into getting instructions into and out of the processor, as soon as possible. They'll pre-emptively read from slow memory into layers of progressively faster memory deeper inside the microchip. Having to fetch some random address means delaying things for agonizing microseconds with nothing to do. That focus on straight-line speed was synonymous with performance, long after clock rates hit the gigahertz barrier. There's this Computer Science 101 concept called Amdahl's Law that was taught wrong as a result of this - people insisted 'more processors won't work faster,' when what it said was, 'more processors do more work.'
Video cards wait better. They have wide lanes where they can afford to, especially in one fat pipe to the processor, but to my knowledge they're fairly conservative on the inside. They don't have hideously-complex processors with layers of exotic cache memory. If they need something that'll take an entire millionth of a second to go fetch, they'll start that, and then do something else. When another task stalls, they'll get back to the other one, and hey look the fetch completed. 3D rendering is fast because it barely matters what order things happen in. Each pixel tends to be independent, at least within groups of a couple hundred to a couple million, for any part of a scene. So instead of one ultra-wide high-speed data-shredder, ready to handle one continuous thread of whatever the hell a program needs next, there's a bunch of mundane grinders being fed by hoppers full of largely-similar tasks. It'll all get done eventually. Adding more hardware won't do any single thing faster, but it'll distribute the workload.
Video cards have recently been pushing the ability to go back to 16-bit operations. It lets them do more things per second. Parallelism has finally won, and increased bit depth is mostly an obstacle to that.
So what 128-bit computing would look like is probably one core on a many-core chip. Like how Intel does mobile designs, with one fat full-featured dual-thread linear shredder, and a whole bunch of dinky little power-efficient task-grinders. Or... like a Sony console with a boring PowerPC chip glued to some wild multi-phase vector processor. A CPU that they advertised as a private supercomputer. A machine I wrote code for during a college course on machine vision. And it also plays Uncharted.
The PS3 was originally intended to ship without a GPU. That's part of its infamous launch price. They wanted a software-rendering beast, built on the Altivec unit's impressive-sounding parallelism. This would have been a great idea back when TVs were all 480p and games came out on one platform. As HDTVs and middleware engines took off... it probably would have killed the PlayStation brand. But in context, it was a goofy path toward exactly what we're doing now - with video cards you can program to work however you like. They're just parallel devices pretending to act linear, rather than they other way around.
There’s this Computer Science 101 concept called Amdahl’s Law that was taught wrong as a result of this - people insisted ‘more processors won’t work faster,’ when what it said was, ‘more processors do more work.’
You massacred my boy there. It doesn't say that at all. Amdahl's law is actually a formula how much speedup you can get by using more cores. Which boils down to: How many parts of your program can't be run in parallel? You can throw a billion cores at something, if you have a step in your algorithm that can't run in parallel.. that's going to be the part everything waits on.
Or copied:
Amdahl's law is a principle that states that the maximum potential improvement to the performance of a system is limited by the portion of the system that cannot be improved. In other words, the performance improvement of a system as a whole is limited by its bottlenecks.
Gene Amdahl himself was arguing hardware. It was never about writing better software - that's the lesson we've clawed out of it, after generations of reinforcing harmful biases against parallelism.
Telling people a billion cores won't solve their problem is bad, actually.
Human beings by default think going faster means making each step faster. How you explain that's wrong is so much more important than explaining that it's wrong. This approach inevitably leads to saying 'see, parallelism is a bottleneck.' If all they hear is that another ten slow cores won't help but one faster core would - they're lost.
That's how we got needless decades of doggedly linear hardware and software. Operating systems that struggled to count to two whole cores. Games that monopolized one core, did audio on another, and left your other six untouched. We still lionize cycle-juggling maniacs like John Carmack and every Atari programmer. The trap people fall into is seeing a modern GPU and wondering how they can sort their flat-shaded triangles sooner.
What you need to teach them, what they need to learn, is that the purpose of having a billion cores isn't to do one thing faster, it's to do everything at once. Talking about the linear speed of the whole program is the whole problem.
You still don't get it. This is about algorithmic complexity.
Say you have an algorithm that has 90% that can be done in parallel, but you have 10% that can't. No matter how many cores you throw at it, be it 4, 10, or a billion, the 10% will be the slowest part that you can't optimize with more cores. So even with an unlimited amount of cores, your algorithm is still having to wait on the last 10% that runs on a single core.
Amdahl's law is simply about those 10% you can't speed up, no matter how many cores you have. It's a bottleneck.
There are algorithms you can't run in parallel, simply because the results depend on each other. For example in a cipher where you first calculate block A, then to calculate block B you rely on block A. You can't do block A and B at the same time, it's not possible. Yes, you can use multi-threading to calculate A, then do it again to calculate B, but overall you still have waiting times while you wait for each result, which means no matter how fast you get, you always have a minimum time that you'll need.
Throwing more hardware at this won't help, that's the entire point. It helps to a certain degree, but at some point the parts you can't run in parallel will hold you back. This obviously doesn't count for workloads that can be done 100% in parallel (like rendering where you can split the workload up without issues), Amdahl's law doesn't apply there as the amount of single-core work would be zero in the equation.
The whole thing is used in software development (I heard of Amdahl's law in my university class) to decide if it makes sense to multi-thread part of the application. If the work you do is too sequential then multi-threading won't give you much of a benefit (or makes it run worse, as you have to spin up threads and synchronize results).
I am a computer engineer. I get the math.
This is not about the math.
Speeding up a linear program means you've already failed. That's not what parallelism is for. That's the opposite of how it works.
Parallel design has to be there from the start. But if you tell people adding more cores doesn't help, unless!, they're not hearing "unless." They're hearing "doesn't." So they build shitty programs and bemoan poor performance and turn to parallelism to hurry things up - and wow look at that, it doesn't help.
I am describing a bias.
I am describing how a bias is reinforced.
That's not even a corruption of Amdahl's law, because again, the actual dude named Amdahl was talking to people who wanted to build parallel machines to speed up their shitty linear code. He wasn't telling them to code better. He was telling them to build different machines.
Building different machines is what we did for thirty or forty years after that. Did we also teach people to make parallelism-friendly programs? Did we fuck. We're still telling students about "linear portions" as if programs still get entered on a teletype and eventually halt. What should be a 300-level class about optimization is instead thrown at people barely past Hello World.
We tell them a billion processors might get them a 10% speedup. I know what it means. You know what it means. They fucking don't.
Every student's introduction to parallelism should be a case where parallelism works. Something graphical, why not. An edge-detect filter that crawls on a monster CPU and flies on a toy GPU. Not some archaic exercise in frustration. Not some how-to for turning two whole cores into a processor and a half. People should be thinking in workloads before they learn what a goddamn pointer is. We betray them, by using a framing of technology that's older than disco. Amdahl's law as she is taught is a relic of the mainframe era.
Telling kids about the limits of parallelism before they've started relying on it has been an excellent way to ensure they won't.
At this point you're just arguing to argue. Of course this is about the math.
This is Amdahl's law, it's always about the math:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/AmdahlsLaw.svg/1024px-AmdahlsLaw.svg.png
No one is telling students to use or not use parallelism, it depends on the workload. If your workload is highly sequential, multi-threading won't help you much, no matter how many cores you have. So you might be able to switch out the algorithm and go with a different one that accomplishes the same job. Or you re-order tasks and rethink how you're using the data you have available.
Practical example: The game Factorio. It has thousands of conveyor belts that have to move items in a deterministic way. As to not mess things up this part of the game ran on a single thread to calculate where everything landed (as belts can intersect, items can block each other and so on). With some clever tricks they rebuilt how it works, which allowed them to safely spread the workload over several cores (at least for groups of belts). Bit of a write-up here (under "Multithreaded belts").
Teaching software development involves teaching the theory. Without that you would have a difficult time to decide what can and what can't benefit from multi-threading. Absolutely no one says "never multi-thread!" or "always multi-thread!", if you had a teacher like that then they sucked.
Learning about Amdahl's law was a tiny part of my university course. A much bigger part was actually multi-threading programs, working around deadlocks, doing performance testing and so on. You're acting as if the teacher shows you Amdahl's law and then says "Obviously this means multi-threading isn't worth it, let's move on to the next topic".
"The way we teach this relationship causes harm."
"Well you don't understand this relationship."
"I do, and I'm saying: people plainly aren't getting it, because of how we teach it."
"Well lemme explain the relationship again--"
Nobody has to tell people not to use parallelism. They just... won't. In part because of how people tend to think, by default, and in part because of how we teach them to think.
We would have to tell students to use parallelism, if we expect graduates to choose it freely. It's hard and it's weird and you can't just slap it on at the end. It should become what they do first.
I am telling you in some detail how focusing on linear performance, using the language of the nineteen goddamn seventies, doesn't need to say multi-threading isn't worth it, to leave people thinking multi-threading isn't worth it.
Jesus, even calling it "multi-threading" is an obstacle. It makes parallelism sound like some fancy added feature. It's the version of parallelism that shows up in late-version changelogs, when for some reason performance has become an obstacle.
Multi-threading is difficult, you can't just slap it on everything and call it a day.
There are languages where it's easier (Go, Rust, ..) but parallelism is an advanced feature. Do it wrong and you get race conditions or dead locks. There is a reason you learn about this later in programming, but you do learn about it (and get to use it).
When we're being honest most programmers work on CRUD applications, which are highly sequential, usually waiting on IO and not CPU cycles and so on. Saving 2ms on some operations doesn't matter if you wait 50ms on the database (and sometimes using more threads is actually slower due to orchestration). If you're working with highly efficient algorithms or with GPUs then parallelism has a much higher priority. But it always depends on what you're working with.
Depending on your tech stack you might not even have the option to properly use parallelism, for example with JavaScript (if you don't jump through hoops).
"Here's all the ways we tell people not to use parallelism."
I'm sorry, that's not fair. It's only a fraction of the ways we tell people not to use parallelism.
Multi-threading is difficult, which is why I said it's a fucking obstacle. It's the wrong model. The fact you'd try to "slap it on" is WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. You CANNOT just apply more cores to existing linear code. You MUST actively train people to write parallel-friendly code, even if it won't necessarily run in parallel.
Javascript is a terrible language I work with regularly, and most of the things that should be parallel aren't - and yet - it has abundant features that should be parallel. It has absorbed elements of functional programming that are excellent practice, even if for some goddamn reason they're actually executed in-order.
Fetches are single-threaded, in Javascript. I don't even know how they did that. Grabbing a webpage and then responding to an event using an inline function is somehow more rigidly linear than pre-emptive multitasking in Windows 95. But you should still write the damn things as though they're going to happen in parallel. You have no control over the order they happen in. That and some caching get you halfway around most locks.
Javascript, loathesome relic, also has vector processing. The kind insisted upon by that pedant in the other subthread, who thinks the 512-bit vector units in a modern Intel chip don't qualify, but the DSP on a Super Nintendo does. Array.forEach and Array.map really fucking ought to be parallelisable. Google could use its digital imperialism to force millions of devs to adopt better standards, just by following the spec and not processing keys in a rigid order. Bad code treating it like a simplified for-loop would break. Good code... wouldn't.
We want people to write that kind of code.
Not necessarily code that will run in parallel. Just code that could.
Workload-centric thinking is the only thing that's going to stop "let's add a little parallelism, as a treat" from producing months of needless agony. Anything else has to be dissected, warped beyond recognition, and stitched back together, with each step taking more effort than starting over from scratch, and the end result still being slow and unreadable and fragile.
Amdahl's isn't the only scaling law in the books.
Gustafson's scaling law looks at how the hypothetical maximum work a computer could perform scales with parallelism—idea being for certain tasks like simulations (or, to your point, even consumer devices to some extent) which can scale to fully utilize, this is a real improvement.
Amdahl's takes a fixed program, considers what portion is parallelizable, and tells you the speed up from additional parallelism in your hardware.
One tells you how much a processor might do, the only tells you how fast a program might run. Neither is wrong, but both are incomplete picture of the colloquial "performance" of a modern device.
Amdahl's is the one you find emphasized by a Comp Arch 101 course, because it corrects the intuitive error of assuming you can double the cores and get half the runtime. I only encountered Gustafson's law in a high performance architecture course, and it really only holds for certain types of workloads.
slight correction. vector processing is available on almost no common architectures. What most architectures have is SIMD instructions. Which means that code that was written for sse2 cannot and will not ever make use of the wider AVX-512 registers.
The risc-v isa is going towards the vector processing route. The same code works on machines with wide vector registers, or ones with no real parallel ability, but will simply loop in hardware.
Simd code running on a newer cpu with better simd capabilities will not run any faster. Unmodified vector code on a better vector processor, will run faster
Fancier tech co-opting an existing term doesn't make the original use wrong.
Any parallel array operation in hardware is vector processing.
fancy, vector processing predated simd. It's how cray supercomputers worked in the 90s. You're the one co opting an existing term :)
And it is in fact a big deal, with several advantages and disadvantages to both.
from the very first paragraph in the page:
a vector processor or array processor is a central processing unit (CPU) that implements an instruction set where its instructions are designed to operate efficiently and effectively on large one-dimensional arrays of data called vectors. This is in contrast to scalar processors, whose instructions operate on single data items only, and in contrast to some of those same scalar processors having additional single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) or SWAR Arithmetic Units.
Where it pretty much states that scalar processors with simd instructions are not vector processors. Vector processors work on large 1 dimensional arrays. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't call a register with 16 32-bit values a "large" vector.
It also states they started in the 70s. That checks out. Which dates were you referring to?
This is rapidly going to stop being a polite interaction if you can't remember your own claims.
SIMD predates the term vector processing, and was in print by 1966.
Vector processing is at least as old as the Cray-1, in 1975. It was already automatically parallelizing what would've been loops on prior hardware.
Hair-splitting about whether a processor can use vector processing or exclusively uses vector processing is a distinction that did not exist at the time and does not matter today. What the overwhelming majority of uses refer to is basically just SIMD extensions. Good luck separating the two when SIMT is a thing.
I'm not hair splitting over whether they can or not. scalar processors with simd cannot do vector processing, because vector processing is not simd.
yes an array of values can be called a vector in a lot of contexts. I could also say that vector processing involves dynamically allocated arrays, since that's what c++ calls them. A word can be used in mulmiple contexts. When the word vector is used in the term "vector processor" it specifically excludes scalar processors with simd instructions. It refers to a particular architecture of machine. Just being able to handle a sequence of numbers is not enough. Simd can do it, as can scalar processors (one at a time, but they still handle "an array of numbers"). You can't even say that they necessarily have to execute more than one at a time. A superscalar processor without simd can do that as well.
A vector processor is a processor specifically designed to handle large lists. And yes, I do consider gpus to be vector processors (exact same shader running on better vector hardware, does run faster.) They are specifically designed for it. simd on a scalar processor is just... not
A word can be used in mulmiple contexts.
Says user insisting an umbrella term has one narrow meaning.
A meaning that would include the SoundBlaster 32.
I am unsure about the historical reasons for moving from 32-bit to 64-bit, but wouldnt the address space be a significantly larger factor? Like you said, CPUs have had vectoring instructions for a long time, and we wouldn't move to 128-bit architectures just to be able to compute with numbers of those size. Memory bandwidth is, also as you say, limited by the bus widths and not the processor architecture. IMO, the most important reason that we transitioned to 64-bit is primarily for the larger address address space without having to use stupidly complex memory mapping schemes. There are also some types of numbers like timestamps and counters that profit from 64-bit, but even here I am not sure if the conplex architecture would yield a net slowdown or speedup.
To answer the original question: 128 bits would have no helpful benefit for the address space (already massive) and probably just slow everyday calculations down.
8-bit machines didn't stop dead at 256 bytes of memory. Address length and bus width are completely independent. 1970s machines were often built with bit-slice memory, with however many bits of addressing, and one-bit output. If you wanted 8-bit memory then you'd wire eight chips in parallel - with the same address lines. Each chip would deliver a different part of the same logical byte.
64-bit math doesn't need 64-bit hardware, either. Turing completeness says any computer can run the same code - memory and time allowing. As an object example, Javascript exclusively used 64-bit double floats, even when it was defined in the late 1990s, and ran exclusively on 32-bit machines.
Clearly you can address more bytes than your data bus width. But then why all the "hacks" on 32-bit architectures? Like the 36-bit address bus via memory mapping on SPARCv8 instead of using paired index registers ( or ARMv7 width LPAE). From a perfomance perspective using an address width that is not the native register width/ internal data bus width is an issue. For a significant subset of operations multiple instructions are required instead of one.
Also is your comment about turing completeness to be taken seriously? We are talking about performance and practicality. Go ahead and crunch on some 64-bit floats using purely 8-bit arithmetic operations (or even using vector registers). Of course you can, but the point is that a suitable word size is more effective for certain computational tasks. For operations that are done frequently, they should ideally be done at native data-bus width. Vectored operations will also cost performance.
If timestamps and counters represent a bottleneck, you have problems larger than bit depth.
Indeed, because those two things were only exemplary, meaning they would be indicative of your system having a bottleneck in almost all types workloads. Supported by the generally higher perforance in 64-bit mode.
