By: Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com), August 10, 2014 3:11 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on August 9, 2014 12:29 am wrote:
>
> The big Intel cores use significant complexity to tackle the problem and they're stuck
> at 4. POWER has reached 8 without problems (with almost certainly better throughput/watt
> on its target workloads).
"almost certainly" is way to strong a statement. It's possible, yes. But so far we have zero evidence.
> Not that this is attributable to decoder alone or x86 tax
> at all necessarily, but just to head off any claim of it being a furnace.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "tracking dependencies++", but there is
> no indication that POWER8 uses a uop cache, so you're simply wrong.
>
Tracking dependencies withing group of instructions that are renamed in parallel. Conventional wisdom says that it has complexity of O(width^2). May be there was algorithmic breakthrough in this area, I don't know...
>
> The big Intel cores use significant complexity to tackle the problem and they're stuck
> at 4. POWER has reached 8 without problems (with almost certainly better throughput/watt
> on its target workloads).
"almost certainly" is way to strong a statement. It's possible, yes. But so far we have zero evidence.
> Not that this is attributable to decoder alone or x86 tax
> at all necessarily, but just to head off any claim of it being a furnace.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "tracking dependencies++", but there is
> no indication that POWER8 uses a uop cache, so you're simply wrong.
>
Tracking dependencies withing group of instructions that are renamed in parallel. Conventional wisdom says that it has complexity of O(width^2). May be there was algorithmic breakthrough in this area, I don't know...
