The death of CPU scaling: From one core to many — and why we’re still stuck
on February 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Share This article
It’s been nearly eight years since Intel canceled Tejas and announced its plans for a new multi-core architecture. The press wasted little time in declaring conventional CPU scaling dead — and while the media has a tendency to bury products, trends, and occasionally people well before their expiration date, this is one declaration that’s stood the test of time. To understand the magnitude of what happened in 2004 it may help to consult the following chart. It shows transistor counts, clock speeds, power consumption, and instruction-level parallelism (ILP). The doubling of transistor counts every two years is known as Moore’s law, but over time, assumptions about performance and power consumption were also made and shown to advance along similar lines. Moore got all the credit, but he wasn’t the only visionary at work. For decades, microprocessors followed what’s known as Dennard scaling. Dennard predicted that oxide thickness, transistor length, and transistor width could all be scaled by a constant factor. Dennard scaling is what gave Moore’ it’s the reason the general-purpose microprocessor was able to overtake and dominate other types of computers. CPU scaling showing transistor density, power consumption, and efficiency. Chart originally from
The original 8086 drew ~1.84W and the P3 1GHz drew 33W, meaning that CPU power consumption increased by 17.9x while CPU frequency improved by 125x. Note that this doesn’t include the other advances that occurred over the same time period, such as the adoption of L1/L2 caches, the invention of out-of-order execution, or the use of superscaling and pipelining to improve processor efficiency. It’s for this reason that the 1990s are sometimes referred to as the golden age of scaling. This expanded version of Moore’s law held true into the mid-2000s, at which point the power consumption and clock speed improvements collapsed. The problem at 90nm was that transistor gates became too thin to prevent current from leaking out into the substrate. Intel and other semiconductor manufacturers have
like strained silicon, hi-k metal gate, FinFET, and FD-SOI — but none of these has re-enabled anything like the scaling we once enjoyed. From 2007 to 2011, maximum CPU clock speed (with Turbo Mode enabled) rose from 2.93GHz to 3.9GHz, an increase of 33%. From 1994 to 1998, CPU clock speeds rose by 300%.Next page:
Post a Comment
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];
_taboola.push({
mode: 'thumbnails-rr',
container: 'taboola-right-rail-thumbnails',
placement: 'Right Rail Thumbnails - Article -gtd',
target_type: 'mix'
ExtremeTech Newsletter
Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
More Articles帮忙翻译Big girl now 歌词的中文意思New Kids On The Block - Big Girl Now (Ft. Lady Gaga)I'm big boy, you're a big girl nowI'm a big girl, you're a big boy nowBack in the day, when you were young (It was fun)Little girl, didn't think you wer_百度作业帮
帮忙翻译Big girl now 歌词的中文意思New Kids On The Block - Big Girl Now (Ft. Lady Gaga)I'm big boy, you're a big girl nowI'm a big girl, you're a big boy nowBack in the day, when you were young (It was fun)Little girl, didn't think you wer
帮忙翻译Big girl now 歌词的中文意思New Kids On The Block - Big Girl Now (Ft. Lady Gaga)I'm big boy, you're a big girl nowI'm a big girl, you're a big boy nowBack in the day, when you were young (It was fun)Little girl, didn't think you were the one (Now, here I come)Your sexy walk, your sexy talk (That's what's up)Little girl, you're clearly not the same kid from the blockI ain't that little girl no more, not no more, that's for sureBoy, get ass out on the floor, lets explore, lets exploreYou know I like the way you move it (move it)Girl, you're all grown up and now you're ready to let it goWanna be a big girl 'bout to prove it (prove it)With a body like that, you got a grown man ready to blowI'm big boy, you're a big girl nowI'm a big girl, you're a big boy nowBack in the day, when I was young (Kinda dumb)But I always knew I'd be the one (Now, here you come)Gonna get you wet, gonna make you sweatGonna give you something you ain't never gonna forgetWell, you ain't a little girl, not no more, that's for sureWanna work it like a big girl, lets exploreDrop it to the floor, baby, get moreYou know I like the way you move it (move it)Girl, you're all grown up and now you're ready to let it goWanna be a big girl 'bout to prove it (prove it)With a body like that, you got a grown man ready to blowYou know I like the way you move it (move it)Girl, you're all grown up and now you're ready to let it goWanna be a big girl 'bout to prove it (prove it)With a body like that, you got a grown man ready to blowI'm big boy, you're a big girl nowI'm a big girl, you're a big boy nowI'm big boy, you're a big girl nowI'm a big girl, you're a big boy nowI've been waiting too long for you to get naughtyEat this and daddy, come on touch my bodyI see that good things come to those who waitCome take me on before it's too lateYou know I like the way you move it (move it)Girl, you're all grown up and now you're ready to let it goWanna be a big girl 'bout to prove it (prove it)With a body like that, you got a grown man ready to blowYou know I like the way you move it (move it)Girl, you're all grown up and now you're ready to let it goWanna be a big girl 'bout to prove it (prove it)With a body like that, you got a grown man ready to blow
在那块新孩子——大女孩了(英尺。女士已经恋)我的大男孩,你是个大女孩了nowI是个大女孩了,你现在是大孩子nowBack在天,当你年轻时(这是消遣的小女孩,没想到你是一个(现在,我来)你性感的行走,性感的谈话(那就是)的小女孩,你显然不一样的孩子从blockI不是那个小女孩没有,不,那是sureBoy,把驴在地板上,让我们探索,让exploreYou知道我喜欢你移动的方式(移)的女孩,...You’re probably using the wrong dictionary
by James Somers, May 18, 2014
The way I thought you used a dictionary was that you looked up words you’ve never heard of, or whose sense you’re unsure of. You would never look up an ordinary word — like example, or sport, or magic — because all you’ll learn is what it means, and that you already know.
Indeed, if you look up those particular words in the dictionary that comes with your computer — on my Mac, it’s the New Oxford American Dictionary, 3rd Edition — you’ll be rewarded with… well, there won’t be any reward. The entries are pedestrian:
example /ig'zamp?l/, n. a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule.
sport /sp?rt/, n. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.
magic /'majik/, n. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Here, words are boiled to their essence. But that essence is dry, functional, almost bureaucratically sapped of color or pop, like . Which trains you to think of the dictionary as a utility, not a quarry of good things, not a place you’d go to explore and savor.
Worse, the words themselves take on the character of their definitions: they are likewise reduced. A delightful word like “fustian” — delightful because of what it means, because of the way it looks and sounds, because it is unusual in regular speech but not so effete as to be unusable, is described, efficiently, as “pompous or pretentious speech or writing.” Not only is this definition (as we’ll see in a minute) simplistic and basically wrong, it’s just not in the same class, English-wise, as “fustian.” The language is tin-eared and uninspired. It’s criminal: This is the place where all the words live and the writing’s no good.
The New Oxford American dictionary, by the way, is not like singularly bad. Google’s dictionary, the modern Merriam-Webster, the dictionary : they’re all like this. They’re all a chore to read. There’s no play, no delight in the language. The definitions are these desiccated little husks of technocratic meaningese, as if a word were no more than its coordinates in semantic space.
John McPhee’s secret weapon
John McPhee — one the great American writers of nonfiction, almost peerless as a prose stylist — once wrote an essay for the New Yorker about his process called “.” He explains that for him, draft #4 is the draft after the painstaking labor of creation is done, when all that’s left is to punch up the language, to replace shopworn words and phrases with stuff that sings.
The way you do it, he says, is “you draw a box not only around any word that does not seem quite right but also around words that fulfill their assignment but seem to present an opportunity.” You go looking for le mot juste.
But where?
“Your destination is the dictionary,” he writes:
Suppose you sense an opportunity beyond the word “intention.” You read the dictionary’s thesaurian list of synonyms: “intention, intent, purpose, design, aim, end, object, objective, goal.” But the dictionary doesn’t let it go at that. It goes on to tell you the differences all the way down the line — how each listed word differs from all the others. Some dictionaries keep themselves trim by just listing synonyms and not going on to make distinctions. You want the first kind, in which you are not just get you are being told the differences in their hues, as if you were looking at the stripes in an awning, each of a subtly different green.
I do not have this first kind of dictionary. In fact I would have never thought to use a dictionary the way McPhee uses his, and the simple reason is that I’ve never had a dictionary worth using that way. If you were to look up the word “intention” in my dictionary here’s all you would see: “ an aim or plan.” No, I don’t think I’ll be punching up my prose with that.
But somehow for McPhee, the dictionary — the dictionary! — was the fount of fine prose, the first place he’d go to filch a phrase, to steal fire from the gods. So for instance he’d have an idea of something he wanted to say:
I grew up in canoes on northern lakes. Thirty years later, I was trying to choose a word or words that would explain why anyone in a modern nation would choose to go a long distance by canoe. I was damned if I was going to call it a sport, but nothing else occurred.
And he’d go, Well, “sport” is kind of clunky, it’s kind of humdrum. Maybe I can do better. And he’d look up “sport,” and instead of the even more hopelessly banal “an activity involving physical exertion and skill” that I’d get out of my dictionary, he’d discover this lovely chip of prose: “2. A diversion of the field.” Thus he could write:
His professed criteria were to take it easy, see some wildlife, and travel light with his bark canoes — nothing more — and one could not help but lean his way… Travel by canoe is not a necessity, and will nevermore be the most efficient way to get from one region to another, or even from one lake to another — anywhere. A canoe trip has become simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain, a diversion of the field, an act performed not because it is necessary but because there is value in the act itself.
A book where you can enter “sport” and end up with “a diversion of the field” — this is in fact the opposite of what I’d known a dictionary to be. This is a book that transmutes plain words into language that’s finer and more vivid and sometimes more rare. No wonder McPhee wrote with it by his side. No wonder he looked up words he knew, versus words he didn’t, in a ratio of “at least ninety-nine to one.”
Unfortunately, he never comes out and says exactly which dictionary he’s getting all this juice out of. But I was desperate to find it. What was this secret book, this dictionary so rich and alive that one of my favorite writers was using it to make heroic improvements to his writing?
I did a little sleuthing. It wasn’t so hard with the examples McPhee gives, and Google. He says, for instance, that in three years of research for a book about Alaska he’d forgotten to look up the word Arctic. He said that his dictionary gave him this: “Pertaining to, or situated under, the northern constellation called the Bear.”
And that turned out to be enough to find it.
The invention of American English
Noah Webster is not the best-known of the Founding Fathers but he has been called “the father of American scholarship and education.” There’s actually this great
of how he almost singlehandedly invented the very idea of American English, defining the native tongue of the new republic, “rescuing” it from “the clamour of pedantry” imposed by the Brits.
He developed a book, the Blue Backed Speller, which was meant to be something of a complete linguistic education for young American kids, teaching them in easy increments how to read, spell, and pronounce words, and bringing them up on a balanced diet of great writing. It succeeded. It was actually the most popu by 1890 it had sold 60 million copies.
But that wasn’t even Webster’s most ambitious project. Certainly it’s not what he became known for. In 1807, he started writing a dictionary, which he called, boldly, An American Dictionary of the English Language. He wanted it to be comprehensive, authoritative. Think of that: a man sits down, aiming to capture his language whole.
Dictionaries today are not written this way. In fact it’d be strange even to say that they’re written. They are built by a large team, less a work of art than of engineering. When you read an entry you don’t get the sense that a person labored at his desk, alone, trying to put the essence of that word into words. That is, you don’t get a sense, the way you do from a good novel, that there was another mind as alive as yours on the other side of the page.
Webster’s dictionary took him 26 years to finish. It ended up having 70,000 words. He wrote it all himself, including the etymologies, which required that he learn 28 languages, including Old English, Gothic, German, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Welsh, Russian, Aramaic, Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit. He was plagued by debt he had to mortgage his home.
In his own lifetime the dictionary sold poorly and got little recognition. Today, of course, his name is so synonymous with even the idea of a dictionary that Webster is actually a
in the U.S., so that other dictionaries whose contents bear no relation to Webster’s original can
the name just to have the “Webster” brand rub off on them. [1]
It makes sense: there was, and is, something remarkable about his 1828 dictionary, and the editions that followed in its line (the New and Revised 1847, the Unabridged 1864, the International 1890 and 1900, the New International 1909, the 1913, etc.). You can see why it became cliché to start a speech with “Webster’s defines X as…”: with his dictionary the definition that followed was actually likely to lend gravitas to your remarks, to sound so good, in fact, that it’d beat anything you could come up with on your own.
Take a simple word, like “flash.” In all the dictionaries I’ve ever known, I would have never looked up that word. I’d’ve had no reason to — I already knew what it meant. But go
(the edition I’m using is the 1913). The first thing you’ll notice is that the example sentences don’t sound like they came out of a DMV training manual (“the lights started flashing”) — they come from Milton and Shakespeare and Tennyson (“A thought flashed through me, which I clothed in act”).
You’ll find a sense of the word that is somehow more evocative than any you’ve seen. “2. To convey as by a flash… as, to flash a mes to flash conviction on the mind.” In the juxtaposition of those two examples — a message
a feeling that comes suddenly to mind — is a beautiful analogy, worth dwelling on, and savoring. Listen to that phrase: “to flash conviction on the mind.” This is in a dictionary, for God’s sake.
And, toward the bottom of the entry, as McPhee promised, is a usage note, explaining the fine differences in meaning between words in the penumbra of “flash”:
… Flashing differs from exploding or disploding in not being accompanied with a loud report. To glisten, or glister, is to shine with a soft and fitful luster, as eyes suffused with tears, or flowers wet with dew.
Did you see that last clause? “To shine with a soft and fitful luster, as eyes suffused with tears, or flowers wet with dew.” I’m not sure why you won’t find writing like that in dictionaries these days, but you won’t. Here is the modern equivalent of that sentence in the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster: “glisten applies to the soft sparkle from a wet or oily surface &glistening wet sidewalk&.”
Who decided that the American public couldn’t handle “a soft and fitful luster”? I can’t help but think something has been lost. “A soft sparkle from a wet or oily surface” doesn’t just sound worse, it actually describes the phenomenon with less precision. In particular it misses the shimmeriness, the micro movement and action, “the fitful luster,” of, for example, an eye full of tears — which is by the way far more intense and interesting an image than “a wet sidewalk.”
It’s as if someone decided that dictionaries these days had to sound like they were written by a Xerox machine, not a person, certainly not a person with a poet’s ear, a man capable of high and mighty English, who set out to write the secular American equivalent of the King James Bible and pulled it off.
Words worth using
I don’t want you to conclude that it’s just a matter of aesthetics. Yes, Webster’s definitions are prettier. But they are also better. In fact they’re so much better that to use another dictionary is to keep yourself forever at arm’s length from the actual language.
Recall that the New Oxford, for the word “fustian,” gives “pompous or pretentious speech or writing.” I said earlier that that wasn’t even really correct. Here, then, is Webster’s definition: “An infla a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the bombast.” Do you see the difference? What makes fustian fustian is not just that the language is pompous — it’s that this pomposity is above the dignity of the thoughts or subject. It’s using fancy language where fancy language isn’t called for.
It’s a subtle difference, but that’s the whole point: English is an awfully subtle instrument. A dictionary that ignores these little in fact in those cases it’s worse than useless. It’s misleading, deflating. It divests those words of their worth and purpose.
Take “pathos.” This is one of those words I used to keep looking up because I kept forgetting what it meant — and every time I’d go to the dictionary I would get this terse, limiting definition: “a quality that evokes pity or sadness.” Not much there to grab a hold of. I’d wonder, Is that really all there is to pathos? It had always seemed a grander word than that. But this was the dictionary, and whatever it declared was final.
Final, that is, until I discovered Webster:
pathos /'pā?TH?s/, n. 1. The quality or character of those emotions, traits, or experiences which are personal, and therefore restr transitory and idiosyncratic dispositions or feelings as distinguished from those which are universal and deep- — opposed to ethos.
It continued. 2. That quality or property of anything which touches the feelings or excites emotions and passions, esp., that which awakens tender emotions, such as pity, sorrow, contagious warmth of feeling, action, as, the pathos of a picture, of a poem, or of a cry.
Dear god! How did I not know about this dictionary? How could you even call yourself a dictionary if all you give for “pathos” is “a quality that evokes pity or sadness”? Webster’s definition is so much fuller, so much closer to felt experience.
Notice, too, how much less certain the Webster definition seems about itself, even though it’s more complete — as if to remind you that the word came first, that the word isn’t defined by its definition here, in this humble dictionary, that definitions grasp, tentatively, at words, but that what words really are is this haze and halo of associations and evocations, a little networked cloud of uses and contexts.
What I mean is that with its blunt authority the New Oxford definition of “pathos” — “a quality that evokes pity or sadness” — shuts down the conversation, it shuts down your thinking about the word, while the Webster’s version gets your wheels turning: it seems so much more provisional — “that which awakens tender emotions, such as pity, sorrow, contagious warmth of feeling, action, as, the pathos of a picture, of a poem, or of a cry” — and therefore alive.
Most important, it describes a word worth using: a mere six letters that have come to stand for something huge, for a complex meta-emotion with mythic roots. Such is the power of actual English.
The pleasure of finding things out
I could go on forever listing examples. I could say, “Look up example, magic, sport. Look up arduous, huge, chauvinistic, venal, pell-mell, raiment, sue, smarting, stereotype. Look up the word word, and look, and up. Look up every word you used today.” Indeed that’s what motivated this post: I’d been using Webster’s diction I kept looking words up, first there, then in whatever modern dictionary was closest to hand, and seeing this awful difference, evidence of a crime that kept piling up in my mind, the guilt building: so many people were getting this wrong impression about words, every day, so many times a day.
There’s an amazing thing that happens when you start using the right dictionary. Knowing that it’s there for you, you start looking up more words, including words you already know. And you develop an affection for even those, the plainest most everyday words, because you see them treated with the same respect awarded to the rare ones, the high-sounding ones.
Which is to say you get a feeling about English that Calvin once got with his pet tiger on a day of fresh-fallen snow: “It’s a magical world, Hobbes. Let’s go exploring!”
Appendix: How to start using Webster’s 1913 dictionary on your Mac, iPhone, Android, and Kindle
The closest thing you can get to a plain-text, easily hackable, free, out-of-copyright version of the dictionary McPhee probably used is .
You’ll never use it, though, unless it’s built in to your computer and available easily on your phone and e-reader. For instance I wanted it so that whenever I typed a word into Spotlight, I’d get a Webster’s definition:
I even wanted it so that when I highlighted a word in my browser, and hit Cmd + Ctrl + D, I’d see a definition from Webster’s:
Here’s how I got that to work:
Download .
Unzip it and launch the DictUnifier app.
Drag the stardict-dictd-web.2.tar.bz2 file, still compressed, onto that app’s little drag-and-drop area. It might take a few seconds before the conversion process starts. Once it does, it’ll take about 30 minutes to finish.
The dictionary will now be available in your Dictionary app. (If not, you may need to enable it in the app’s Preferences pane, as .) But its formatting may look a little off. If the lines are squished together, open
~/Library/Dictionaries/dictd_www.dict.org_web1913.dictionary/Contents/DefaultStyle.css in a text editor and add the following directive:
p { line-height: 0.7em }
Restart the Dictionary app to confirm that the CSS was updated correctly. (You might also try bumping the margin-top and margin-bottom values in the div.y block to 0.7em, from 0.5em. And some folks have said that 1em works better than 0.7em.)
If you want to always see Webster’s results by default, go to the Dictionary app’s preferences and drag Webster’s to the top of the list.
If you’re on OS X Lion, follow
so that Dictionary results appear first in Spotlight searches.
If you’re unhappy with the formatting of the entries in Dictionary,
are alternative instructions for setting up Webster’s on OS X that may give better results. (, too.)
To get it on your iPhone, get the Stardict-compatible
app. On its installation screen, go to the “Network” tab and type /huzheng/stardict-dic/dict.org/stardict-dictd-web.2.tar.bz2, exactly, into the URL bar. (Alternatively, just download
by Aaron Parks.)
For Android, you can follow , courtesy of .
To add the dictionary as a search engine on Chrome, follow , courtesy of .
And finally,
to get the dictionary on your Kindle.
[1] Note that the modern Merriam-Webster, even though it does derive directly from Webster’s original, has been revised so much that it’s actually less similar, content-wise, than some of the impostors. It, too, is one of the “wrong” dictionaries.
& James Somers. Powered by}