Nvidia: Moore's Law is Dead, Multi-core Not Future

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Marcus Yam served as Tom's Hardware News Director during 2008-2014. He entered tech media in the late 90s and fondly remembers the days when an overclocked Celeron 300A and Voodoo2 SLI comprised a gaming rig with the ultimate street cred.
  • Parsian
    somebody has to tell the dude,DUH!!!
    Reply
  • figgus
    Translation:

    "Our tech is the future, everyone else has no idea what they are doing. Please buy our GPGPU crap, even though it is inferior to what our competitors are making right now for everyday use."
    Reply
  • 2zao
    !!
    Maybe this will open some eyes.... but i doubt many for now....

    too many are in a stupor doing things they way that is the norm and easiest for them instead of how should be... how long will it take for people to wake up to the direction change needs to go?
    Reply
  • yay
    Thats all well and good, until you need to do one thing BEFORE another, like when rendering a scene. Or maybe he forgot that.
    Reply
  • eyemaster
    What are you waiting for then, Bill Dally, go ahead and create that chip... ...ha, that's what I thought, even you can't do it.
    Reply
  • mindless728
    except without serial optimizations general apps (not compute apps) will suffer since the serial optimizations allow for fast comparisons where as their compute cores on the GPU are very inefficient at this. Yes it will help computing, but general apps will suffer.

    And really, some programs (algorithms) can never turned into a parallel app
    Reply
  • matt_b
    and that programmers trained in parallel programming are scarce.
    I totally agree with this statement here. However, if this were to change, and more were trained in how to properly program for parallel computing, then the same could be said about the need to train more on how to properly program for serial/series computing - which is where we are currently in processor design. I think it's more fair to say the insufficiency lies on both sides.

    On another note, am I the only one finding it amusing that the chief scientist of R&D at Nvidia is stating the CPU consumes too much energy??? Did he forget about the monster they just released, or does he still consider it to be within acceptable power requirements or efficient enough?
    Reply
  • ravewulf
    Dally said that the long-standing, 40-year-old serial programming practices are ones that will be hard to change, and that programmers trained in parallel programming are scarce.

    This. Extremely few programs today even properly use the limited amount of cores we have now. Look at all the programs that are still single threaded that could easily benefit from parallelism (QuickTime and iTunes for one). There are also other algorithms that simply CAN"T be made parallel (some parts of video encoding that depend on previous results for the next task).
    Reply
  • triculious
    while I agree that there are instances where parallel processing works way better than serialized, you can't altogether switch from one to the other
    then there's parallelized code, which is hell for programmers

    and then there's what we could call "Dally's law": your graphics card must be twice as hot every 12 months
    Reply
  • rhino13
    Wait, so then you'd have a bunch of people who only understood one paragraph and nothing else? It's all gotta go back to serial at some point! This is a bad example.

    But I do agree with what he's saying. We need to put more effort into parallel speed than serial.
    Reply