Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New posts
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
Trending
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New ads
New profile posts
Latest activity
Free Ads
Latest reviews
Search ads
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Contact us
Latest ads
Puffin Rock Characters Plush Toy Set
anil1961
Updated:
Saturday at 3:51 PM
Toyota Vitz scp10 For Sale
Lakmal Bandara
Updated:
Wednesday at 10:50 AM
Kandy
Welcome all my all new pet shop Bark.lk
dilumrane
Updated:
Nov 2, 2026
Windows RDP Only Rs.500 a month
Blogerwiki
Updated:
Nov 1, 2026
Ad icon
V2ray VPN for Tunneling
hu KANNA
Updated:
Oct 22, 2026
Electronics
Vehicles
Property
Search
Reply to thread
Forums
General
ElaKiri Talk!
Question for Computer Knowlege PPL
Get the App
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="shan" data-source="post: 1656954" data-attributes="member: 712"><p>This paper presents a survey of some of the most aggressive custom designs for CMOS processor products and prototypes in IBM. We argue that microprocessor performance growth, which has traditionally been driven primarily by CMOS technology and microarchitectural improvements, can receive a substantial contribution from improvements in circuit design and physical organization. We predict that in future microprocessor designs the floorplan and wire plan will be as important as the microarchitecture, more control logic will be structured and become indistinguishable from dataflow elements, and more circuits will be designed and analyzed at the level of single transistors and wires.</p><p>1. Introduction</p><p>The traditional recipe for improving microprocessor performance, measured in instructions per cycle divided by cycle time, relies on improving both the frequency and the amount of useful computation per cycle. The total amount of work per cycle is increased by operating on multiple instructions in parallel and by avoiding stall conditions through speculation and out-of-order processing. Two main mechanisms are traditionally used to improve frequency—a contribution from CMOS technology, and adding stages to the microprocessor pipeline to reduce the amount of work per stage or, equivalently, per cycle. Unlike most microarchitectural mechanisms that aim to increase the amount of work per cycle, improving the frequency has an easily predictable benefit to overall performance and therefore resonates most in the marketplace.</p><p></p><p>Figure 1 shows an overview of the maximum frequency times CMOS lithography dimension for processors shipped in a number of recent 64-bit server systems. Since transistor delays are (to first order) proportional to channel length, and channel length is roughly proportional to the general lithography resolution, the graph provides (to first order) a technology-invariant measure of frequency. Except for the Alpha® processors, which set the standard for high-frequency processor design [1, 2] but have recently focused on CPI rather than processor frequency, the graph shows most 64-bit architectures improving steadily in frequency, even when the contribution from technology is factored out. It should be noted that technological improvements beyond lithography scaling, such as copper interconnects (IBM 0.22- and 0.18-µm technologies), and silicon-on-insulator, or SOI (used in the 0.22-µm 64-bit PowerPC*) have not been compensated for in this graph.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="shan, post: 1656954, member: 712"] This paper presents a survey of some of the most aggressive custom designs for CMOS processor products and prototypes in IBM. We argue that microprocessor performance growth, which has traditionally been driven primarily by CMOS technology and microarchitectural improvements, can receive a substantial contribution from improvements in circuit design and physical organization. We predict that in future microprocessor designs the floorplan and wire plan will be as important as the microarchitecture, more control logic will be structured and become indistinguishable from dataflow elements, and more circuits will be designed and analyzed at the level of single transistors and wires. 1. Introduction The traditional recipe for improving microprocessor performance, measured in instructions per cycle divided by cycle time, relies on improving both the frequency and the amount of useful computation per cycle. The total amount of work per cycle is increased by operating on multiple instructions in parallel and by avoiding stall conditions through speculation and out-of-order processing. Two main mechanisms are traditionally used to improve frequency—a contribution from CMOS technology, and adding stages to the microprocessor pipeline to reduce the amount of work per stage or, equivalently, per cycle. Unlike most microarchitectural mechanisms that aim to increase the amount of work per cycle, improving the frequency has an easily predictable benefit to overall performance and therefore resonates most in the marketplace. Figure 1 shows an overview of the maximum frequency times CMOS lithography dimension for processors shipped in a number of recent 64-bit server systems. Since transistor delays are (to first order) proportional to channel length, and channel length is roughly proportional to the general lithography resolution, the graph provides (to first order) a technology-invariant measure of frequency. Except for the Alpha® processors, which set the standard for high-frequency processor design [1, 2] but have recently focused on CPI rather than processor frequency, the graph shows most 64-bit architectures improving steadily in frequency, even when the contribution from technology is factored out. It should be noted that technological improvements beyond lithography scaling, such as copper interconnects (IBM 0.22- and 0.18-µm technologies), and silicon-on-insulator, or SOI (used in the 0.22-µm 64-bit PowerPC*) have not been compensated for in this graph. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Haya warak paha keeyada? (haya wadi kireema paha)
Post reply
Top
Bottom