Wilco (Wilco.Dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on November 3, 2016 2:13 pm wrote:
> juanrga (noemail.delete@this.juanrga.com) on November 3, 2016 12:35 pm wrote:
> > anon (spam.delete.delete@this.this.spam.com) on November 1, 2016 1:00 pm wrote:
> > > juanrga (noemail.delete@this.juanrga.com) on October 31, 2016 4:55 am wrote:
> > > > Travis (travis.downs.delete@this.gmail.com) on October 30, 2016 7:13 pm wrote:
> > > > > juanrga (noemail.delete@this.juanrga.com) on October 30, 2016 2:56 pm wrote:
> > > > > > Indeed and if the core stalls would it be considered 0-wide? Evidently, there is two ways to define
> > > > > > the wide, either as a kind of average, which is not very useful because it depends on the elements
> > > > > > of the ensemble taken to compute the average or we define wide as the maximum allowed by the architecture.
> > > > > > Thus even if Broadwell cannot sustain 8 uops per cycle, we define it as 8-wide.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is also useful to mention context; we were trying to
> > > > > > explain the reasons why Broadwell core is much bigger
> > > > > > than Hurricane core. Even if Broadwell cannot sustain 8
> > > > > > uops, it has all the circuitry and transistors needed
> > > > > > to issue "up to" 8 uops, and that adds to the size of the core compared to a 6-wide Hurricane.
> > > > >
> > > > > No it is not "evident" that those are the only two ways to define it, and the one you chose is
> > > > > totally impractical and not one I've ever heard use.
> > > >
> > > > You would open your hears then, because I am not the first
> > > > to claim that Haswell is 8-wide and Cyclone is 6-wide.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lighterra.com/papers/modernmicroprocessors/#multipleissuesuperscalar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01193178/document
> > > >
> > > > And so on...
> > >
> > > Don't use VISC marketing. Please. It's such a trainwreck.
> > > Remember this? http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10025/Presentation%20%2810%29.jpg
> > >
> > > I mean I respect what they are doing and I'm pretty sure they know
> > > what they're doing, but their marketing department? God no.
> >
> > (i)
> > I have given three resources. Those aren't all that exist, but are three easy to find online and link here.
> >
> > (ii)
> > I know Soft Machines marketing. I have criticized their marketing claims about VISC in
> > threads available in this site. I wasn't quoting that kind of marketing, but only the
> > slide reporting the wides of different available cores made by other companies. Their
> > claims about the wide of different cores agree with the other resources provided.
>
> Being wrong 3 times doesn't make it true... Comparing the minimum width of some CPUs
> with the maximum width of another is simply marketing lies. If you want to claim Haswell
> is 8-wide then Cortex-A57 would be at least as wide and Apple A7-A10 wider still.
>

In case you have not noticed I have given a pair of non-marketing resources and there are more there out. The only marketing lie I can see is if someone pretends that A57 is "at least as wide" like Haswell. Are you aware of ARM internal testing comparing IPC of Haswell to A57? And are you aware that exists a relationship between IPC and wide?