

Dark silicon and the end of multicore scaling - anigbrowl
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2010000/2000108/p365-esmaeilzadeh.pdf?ip=98.248.125.108&acc=OPEN&CFID=124995227&CFTOKEN=14912061&__acm__=1341965911_59a72d30164b3c70158b40e423842fd3

======
anigbrowl
_Currently, the broader computing community is in consensus that we are in
“the multicore era.” Consensus is often dangerous, however. Given the low
performance returns assuming conservative (and to some degree ITRS) scaling,
adding more cores will not provide sufficient benefit to justify continued
process scaling. If multicore scaling ceases to be the primary driver of
performance gains at 16nm (in 2014) the “multicore era” will have lasted a
mere nine years, a short-lived attempt to defeat the inexorable consequences
of Dennard scaling’s failure.

Clearly, architectures that move well past the Pareto-optimal frontier of
energy/performance of today’s designs will be necessary. Given the time-frame
of this problem and its scale, radical or even incremental ideas simply cannot
be developed along typical academic research and industry product cycles. On
the other hand, left to the multicore path, we may hit a “transistor utility
economics” wall in as few as_ three to five years, at which point Moore’s Law
may end, _creating massive disruptions in our industry. Hitting a wall from
one of these two directions appears inevitable._

~~~
anigbrowl
If you're going to downvote, please explain why. This is from the conclusion
to the paper.

~~~
SlipperySlope
I'm not the downvoter, but you might in the future make it clear to readers
that you are quoting from the article. What I commonly do is the following,
which is especially useful for making my point or summarizing a too-long
article.

The takeaway ...

"<appropriate contiguous text from the submitted article>"

~~~
anigbrowl
Ah - I thought the italics made that obvious. I guess not!

