By: Megol (golem960.delete@this.gmail.com), April 18, 2017 3:24 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
RichardC (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on April 18, 2017 2:48 pm wrote:
> The Mill project started out in 2003. It probably made a lot more sense
> back then, when Intel's Pentium4/Netburst microarchitecture was very power-hungry
> (75W thermal power for a single-core Willamette 2GHz) and had somewhat
> disappointing IPC.
>
> But now that Skylake Xeon E5-2699 gives you 32 cores (with AVX-512) in 165W,
> or about 5W per core, the competitive landscape is very different.
OoO processors have overheads, the Mill tries to reduce those overheads. That is as valid today as yesterday.
Even modern power-optimized processors expend a lot of power for doing calculations using very little power. Whether the Mill can change that is unclear but at least they are trying.
> The Mill project started out in 2003. It probably made a lot more sense
> back then, when Intel's Pentium4/Netburst microarchitecture was very power-hungry
> (75W thermal power for a single-core Willamette 2GHz) and had somewhat
> disappointing IPC.
>
> But now that Skylake Xeon E5-2699 gives you 32 cores (with AVX-512) in 165W,
> or about 5W per core, the competitive landscape is very different.
OoO processors have overheads, the Mill tries to reduce those overheads. That is as valid today as yesterday.
Even modern power-optimized processors expend a lot of power for doing calculations using very little power. Whether the Mill can change that is unclear but at least they are trying.
