1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News European Commission offers funding for CPU efficiency projects

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 11 Nov 2016.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
  2. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,304
    Likes Received:
    321
    So with ARM being bought by a Japanese company and us leaving the EU does that rule them out from something like this, if so it seems a shame as ARM (afaik) are fairly good when it comes to CPU efficiency.
     
  3. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    I was thinking the same thing. Pretty stupid they decided to do this now. They also seem to be pretty clueless if they think someone can make a CPU that has better performance-per-watt than anything ARM, Intel, AMD, IBM, Nvidia, and MIPS can, have, or will make. Don't forget - it needs to be cost effective to mass-produce too. Sure, Intel is kind of slacking lately and we don't yet know what AMD will be releasing for servers, but for the most part it seems we have reached peak efficiency for silicon chips.
     
  4. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    What rot. "640K should be enough for anyone."

    What about RISC-V? What about Adapteva's Epiphany? What about Fujitsu's new architecture that promises a 10,000-fold performance boost for a selected class of problem? We're nowhere near giving up on novel solutions yet, not by a long shot.
     
  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Not sure how that quote relates. I'll accept performance and efficiency improvements with open arms, but the only architecture I've noticed that made any real-world progress is ARM, and in doing so they're slowly selling off their RISC soul by becoming CISC.

    Yes, what about those architectures? If they are deserving to win, why haven't they already?

    RISC-V is, to my understanding, kind of an in-between approach of MIPS and FPGA. It's a great architecture, but I don't see it being all that useful in the average server/mainframe.

    The Epiphany-V seems innovative but I can't really tell if it's any better than a GPU. Epiphany may have a more refined design, and it may also be more efficient since a GPU requires a CPU to tell it what to do (in other words, avoidable overhead). But in a business perspective, there are too many downsides. The roadmap for it isn't clear or promising, and it would take more effort to get desired software to run on it (compared to GPUs) and, more importantly, take advantage of its cores. There doesn't seem to be much of an upgrade path either.

    Fujitsu's architecture also seems great, but nothing is stated about energy efficiency. Regardless, it doesn't seem to be easy to properly utilize. I have a hard time believing you can just simply re-compile your program for this architecture and suddenly see a 10000x performance increase. I have no doubt it could blow any other CPU out of the water, but it isn't realistically possible for companies to re-write whatever software they use to take advantage of the performance of this in a way where they can maximize it's potential.


    So all that being said, yes, of course there are ways to get better performance out of a silicon CPU. But if just simply getting the best possible performance-per-watt was the only thing that ever mattered then someone could just get the funding for developing an ASIC. But the requirement was "specifically tailored for high-performance, low-power server-side applications" so if you have an architecture that is really picky about how you use it, I don't see that as being a winner and clearly the EC doesn't either (unless they're just ignorant).
     
  6. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    The 640K quote was an attempt to demonstrate how blind you're being. Everything you're saying could have been - and was - said about ARM when that came along. "If they are deserving to win, why haven't they already?"

    Well, guess what? They did.

    The industry leaders only remain the industry leaders until something better comes along. Intel was king, then it screwed up with the NetBurst architecture and AMD took the lead. Then AMD screwed up with Bulldozer and Intel took over once more. Both of 'em got caught flat-footed in the mobile and embedded market, so ARM made bank. Now you're honestly telling me that the market will never change?

    As for your comments on the Fujitsu thing, you're so far off base you can't see the aeroplanes landing any more. You don't 'recompile your program' for it, 'cos it's not a general-purpose processor. It won't, to use common parlance, play Crysis. What it does is solve a class of problems that it used to take a general-purpose processor 10,000 hours to solve in one hour.

    Those are exactly the sort of projects the EC is looking to fund. Let's say you're right - you're not, but let's just pretend for a while - and, somehow, now, at this point in time and never before, we've for some reason reached some magical limit where there's nothing we can do to make the general-purpose portion of a CPU any more efficient. So, let's start sticking non-general-purpose stuff in there. Let's stick an Epiphany engine on-die. Boom: our CPU just got several times more efficient at doing many-threaded work. Let's stick a Fujitsu problem-solving core on-die. Boom: we can now do combinatorial problems 10,000 times faster.

    "But nobody would do that," you're probably about to answer. Oh, but they already did. Early CPUs like the Intel 4004 were basic things. Having them read and write from a separate memory chip was slow, so we added cache memory. Boom: massive performance gain. We then realised that doing floating-point mathematics in an integer microprocessor was inefficient, so we built floating-point co-processors and eventually built them into the microprocessor itself. Boom: massive performance gain. We added new levels of cache, to cope with the increasing performance. Boom: massive performance gain. We added integrated graphics processors. Boom: massive performance gain. Multi-CPU systems showed us how running multiple threads simultaneously could make the system run faster, so we built processors with more than one core. Boom: massive performance gain. Now we're playing with adding actual frickin' memory to processors, courtesy EDRAM and HBM, and you can expect a performance boost from that, too.

    As for saying RISC-V is an "in-between approach of MIPS and FPGA," what the devil are you talking about? MIPS is an architecture, as is RISC-V; FPGA stands for field-programmable gate array, and is a programmable logic device you can use to build whatever circuit you want. That's like saying a Ferrari stands between a Lamborghini and a petrol engine; it literally makes zero sense.

    EDIT:
    Here's a fun little fact to add to the discussion: the world's fastest supercomputer, the Sunway TaihuLight at the National Supercomputing Centre in Wuxi, is the third most efficient in the world in terms of performance per watt and it uses Sunway SW26010 260-core processors. If you think there's no way somebody other than Intel, AMD, ARM, or MIPS could have anything to offer the market, then I'd say that kinda proves you wrong.

    The full report, with graphs and notes of the weaknesses of the overall design, is available here (PDF warning).
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2016
  7. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    If I were so blind then why has innovation for current PCs and servers stifled so much? Intel has real competition, maybe not against AMD, but elsewhere. They have more than enough money to create something competitive, they focus on more than just x86, and yet they still aren't keeping up. Intel makes for a sore loser, so the only realistic reason for them to give up in something (such as the smartphone market) is because they can't make something good enough.

    ARM themselves doubted their own success. They succeeded simply because they offered something nobody else did - a cheap and energy efficient design that was very capable but simple enough be easy to develop for. The architectures you mentioned do not wholly fit that description.
    Unless you didn't mention it in the article, then no, they did not in fact win. Not this funding from the EC anyway, which is what this is all about.

    Seems you misinterpreted my statement as much as you think I misunderstood how it works. I explicitly said I have a hard time believing you can recompile a program for it. The fact that you actively pointed out that it isn't a general-purpose processor is exactly why it isn't a contender for what the EC is looking for, which was my point...

    Irrelevant comparison. Back then, people didn't have a choice. There were no alternatives. The "boom" moments you mentioned were what made x86 a CISC and capable enough of being a general-purpose CPU. But as you can tell, x86 has become woefully complex, and the only way for architectures like ARM to stay relevant with modern software is to do many of the very same "boom" moments. It takes years to accomplish all of that, even with an already established architecture. Architectures such as the ones you mentioned are relatively primitive (with RISC-V being intentionally primitive). They may be great at what they do, but in a business perspective, they're not good enough in terms of time, cost, and capability or else the EC would have already funded them. If these architectures are to see success, they need such attention.


    I'm aware what MIPS and FPGAs are, but I understand your confusion; I should've elaborated: I get the impression RISC-V is more complex and capable than FPGAs, but less so than MIPS. In other words, it seems you could run a modern OS on RISC-V, but it doesn't seem like it could be capable of being used as a PC or a general-purpose server. Not that it was meant to, but again, we're talking about what the EC is expecting.
     
  8. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    I literally gave you a link to a report on a processor from a company you've never heard of which powers the world's fastest computer, in addition to the links from my previous posts. Does that sound stifled to you?
    What the hell are you on about now? When I say ARM won, I mean ARM won: the architecture everybody said was dead before the Archimedes had a chance to fail is now the most shipped architecture in the entire world. If that's not winning, then I'll happily take the same level of failure.
    Once again, you're going off half-cocked. The EC is looking for, and I quote from the article here, "a new family of processors with a significantly better energy-to-performance ratio compared to current offerings, specifically tailored for high-performance, low-power server-side applications." The Fujitsu chip is a new family of processors with a significantly better energy-to-performance ratio compared to current offerings, specifically tailored to high-performance, low-power server-side applications. It's literally what they're looking for. It improves the PPW of combinatorial problem-solving servers 10,000 times. If Fujitsu were a European company, they'd be a shoe-in for funding - not that they need it.
    Absolute crap, as is the rest of your paragraph.
    So, in this single paragraph you reveal that you don't understand what any of those things are. RISC-V is not "more complex and capable than FPGAs." In fact, the currently-available implementations of RISC-V run on FPGAs. Likewise, you can run MIPS on an FPGA. An FPGA is as complex or simple as it needs to be. I could buy a Xilinx FPGA today and have it running a RISC-V core, an x86 core, a freakin' Intel 4004 core... An FPGA is simply a chip that lets you build a circuit. You can then run the circuit on the FPGA, or use it to prove the circuit works and have it built at a fab as a fixed integrated circuit. The complexity comes entirely from what you ask the chip to run.

    As for not being able to use RISC-V as a general-purpose PC or server, you absolutely can. In fact, that's what the project is for. To quote Wikipedia:
    The IIT Madras Open Source Processor Project is using RISC-V to build a range of chips from an ultra-low-power IoT-focused embedded part to the M-class processors "aimed at general purpose compute, low end server and mobile applications" and the S-class processors "for desktop/server applications." Y'know, the things you said RISC-V wasn't for, because once again you're talking about things you haven't bothered to research.
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2016
  9. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Worlds fastest supercomputer means nothing by itself. Nvidia created the world's fastest supercomputer at one point too, but I think we can all agree they don't have the world's best architecture, even at the time they held that title. When it comes to supercomputers, money is the limit. I haven't found enough info on the SW26010 to know how much better each core or logical thread is compared to all competitors, so I wouldn't be so quick to say current general-purpose server-capable CPU technology isn't stifled.
    Again, getting a little presumptuous here. At least according to the article you linked to, we don't know what the wattage is. Nothing clearly states it was designed with being "low-power" in mind, which was a separate requirement from PPW. But at this point this is getting into petty semantics.
    Anyway to my knowledge, Fujitsu has European factories and engineers. I'm sure they could exploit some loophole using their European HQ if they really wanted to; many companies do such a thing to avoid stuff like taxes.

    Has someone peed in your coffee this morning? What could have been an intelligent debate is turning into "you're stupid and so are your thoughts".
    What I stated is based on what I know has currently been accomplished with RISC-V. That being said, if you continue reading that Wikipedia article, you'll find that support for the OSes you mentioned are very recently provisional. It requires a simulator to run a web browser... Not exactly something I would call an efficient approach.
    Obviously, it's capable of being a PC or general-purpose server, but it isn't going to be good at it. For a 6-year-old project it sure hasn't accomplished much in being a PC or server, probably because it's better off focusing on specific applications where it will actually flourish.

    I'm not trashing the architecture, but it seems to be more of a proof-of-concept than anything with a prosperous future.
     
  10. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    Perhaps try reading the PDF report to which I linked, hmm?

    Dude, it's 10,000 times more efficient. I think we can safely say it's not drawing 10,000 times the power of a general-purpose CPU, which means it's definitely beating it for that class of problems.

    No, it's more "it's been a long week and I'm absolutely sick to the back teeth of seeing schmidtbag weigh in on threads with no idea what he's talking about."
    At this point you're failing to even read things properly. It doesn't "require a simulator to run a web browser," it can be run in a simulator in a web browser. Go back, re-read the page.
    Wrong, as usual.

    I can't help but notice, also, that you don't seem to have brought up your complete misunderstanding of what an FPGA is. This is what you do, schmidtbag, and it's why I'm so peed off right now: you wade in with a bunch of rubbish, get called on it, then continuously move the goalposts rather than simply say "you know what, I was wrong." I think I'm going to call that "doing a schmidtbag."
     
  11. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hmm> yeah, I'm not going to notice a link to a PDF when you added it after you already replied...
    Again - I'm not denying it's efficient. Obviously, it isn't drawing 10,000x the power of a competing CPU, but 10,000x the performance is clearly also a best-case scenario. In some scenarios, it wouldn't surprise me if it performed worse than a 10-core Xeon. When AMD says Zen will be 40% faster than Excavator, those are probably cherry-picked results. Any performance claims that come directly from a manufacturer are to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Remember - if it were really as good as they claimed for just about anything you throw at it, everyone (obviously in the server world) would be flocking to them.

    Sure are getting nit-picky here... The end result is literally no different. As far as we're concerned, a web browser has not been successfully run on RISC-V without a simulator. It doesn't matter if the browser itself is in a simulator or the entire environment, the point is a simulator was needed.

    A deep and complete understanding of FPGA is irrelevant, which is why I'm ignoring the discussion about them. I know what FPGAs are but you're choosing to look at things in a different perspective. I used FPGA as an example of a piece of hardware that is relatively simple compared to MIPS. Sure, you can make it emulate another architecture, but that tends to defeat the purpose of using them. When you have an FPGA act like an x86 CPU, it's probably not going to do a very good job or else everyone would be buying them. So pointing that out that capability is irrelevant.
    Ironic in a way, how you're doing the exact opposite of me. Obviously, I'm going to focus on the goalposts, because that's all that matters - the reason you replied in the first place is because you don't like where I put them. But you would rather focus on the little side things I said along the way when they have no impact on the big picture. What you can do with FPGA has nothing to do with this, but you would rather use that against me simply because you can.

    Give me 3 real-world examples where you gave an antagonistic reply and someone willingly admitted they were wrong. Keep in mind, I'm not questioning whether your phrasing was warranted or not (I don't blame you for the way your first response turned out).
    You are your own problem. Most people by now would see me as a troll and ignore me. It is usually in the interest of article publishers to not intervene in comments unless to point out a correction against a proposed fact. I made an opinion, albeit, a needlessly negative one without the foresight to be more specific about "general purpose CPUs". I will also admit after your first reply that I misread one key fact about the article, which was that it was exclusive to European designers only.

    You should ask yourself what you personally gain when you get involved in stuff like this.
     
  12. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    What scenarios? All it does is run combinatorial problems, and does so faster than anything else.
    You can't buy them yet, can you - so how exactly is everyone going to flock to them?
    Right, I want you to read this very, very carefully, then read it again: you can, in the web browser you are using now, run a simulated RISC-V system. Think of it like DOSbox, which emulates an x86 processor so you can run old games: you can test out RISC-V right there, in your browser, on your existing computer, and do development work.

    You can run a web browser on RISC-V. You can run an entire operating system, natively on the architecture, and do everything you could do on the same operating system running on any other architecture. What you're claiming simply isn't true, and is a result of you doing what you always do: quickly skimming something then going off half-cocked.

    No, you don't know what they are - as you've proven in your posts.
    What? That's entirely what they're for! An FPGA, by itself, does nothing. It just sits there. It's like a box of Lego, where nothing is connected to anything else. Only by loading a core onto it and telling it to act like a certain chip does it actually do anything - like taking the Lego and building a house. Then, and this is the beauty of FPGAs, when you're done, you can break the Lego down and build an aeroplane instead.
    It's not a capability, it's literally their sole purpose. An FPGA exists so that you can build a custom integrated circuit that doesn't currently exist, or create an implementation of an integrated circuit that you want to build and test it before going to the expense of having a fab in China churn out a few billion of them.
    No, the reason I replied is because you're demonstrably wrong.
    No, I'd rather you admit that you had a completely incorrect understanding of what an FPGA is, and stop using that incorrect understanding as a 'fact' to drop into threads.
    You're assuming I'm not enjoying this, which is wrong - y'know, for a change. The wife's bathing my youngest, the eldest is at granny's - I've got nothing but time and a burning, urgent desire to act out the SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET xkcd comic. It's cheaper than going to the pub, anyway.
    No, you stated a bunch of completely incorrect 'facts' then continued to spout more in a desperate attempt to prevent strangers on the internet from knowing you were wrong. Or 'doing a schmidtbag,' as I like to call it.
    It's fun. What are you gaining, out of interest, other than digging yourself into an ever-deeper pit of ignorance?
     
  13. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    If it can't ever run just any calculation you want, it doesn't have enough of a wide-spread use to be of interest to a wide server market. But for argument's sake if you could make it run any program you wanted, in some cases its performance wouldn't be all that impressive. I get the impression the EC wants something that is more than a glorified ASIC. Maybe I'm wrong, in which case, discussing this doesn't matter.
    Doesn't matter if you can buy them yet. There are already results of it's performance, so it's already a proven product. So, why haven't they attracted enough interest for potential buyers? Maybe they have, but since you like proving me wrong so much, I'll let you do the research.
    Alright, that I will "happily admit" I badly misinterpreted. Feel proud yet?
    I don't have the time or care to thoroughly study these things; that's actually your job. However, in my own research, I have yet to find any GUI tools that run on RISC-V. As for web browsers, I'm sure it can run Lynx, but that hardly qualifies as one.
    Again, not denying that RISC-V can run a GUI.
    That doesn't disagree with anything I said. That doesn't prove I know nothing about FPGAs. I'm aware of everything you said. But as usual, you keep focusing in a different direction. I don't know how many times I need to explain that I'm not talking about what an FPGA can do, I'm strictly referring to it on a hardware level. Yes, of course some FPGAs are meant to behave like another CPU, but generally they aren't meant to be production-level and mass-produced as that CPU. Otherwise, companies like Intel would only produce FPGAs that are pre-programmed with an x86 design.
    This is why discussing this isn't relevant - it's completely besides the point.

    Based on your perspective of my initial response, I absolutely was wrong. I failed to be more specific. So, I specified, and here we are now.
    Not going to happen. Admitting I'm wrong about that would mean you are also wrong, because I don't disagree.
    lol yeah ok, keep telling yourself that. Your next sentence shows frustration. Your previous posts showed frustration. You've dropped your professional attitude and are risking your public integrity to put up a petty argument with someone who you have admitted is repeatedly stubborn. If that sounds like more fun than going to a pub, you've got some bad priorities, and frankly, is sad. I know I'll be enjoying my time away from the computer when going out tonight.
    My phrasing (where it matters) does not dictate fact. For someone as picky about wording as you (not an insult, just an observation), you should realize this. In the places where I am stating an incorrect "fact", I have already admitted being wrong.
    Mind explaining how I would consider digging into a pit of ignorance a gain?
    Anyway, I'm not gaining anything - I'm not trying to and never implied I was. This just helps pass the time while I'm bored at work. Meanwhile, your wife is taking care of your kid for you while you're keeping me company. I might not be gaining anything, but seems to me you're more at a loss. But if you insist this is fun, I unfortunately have to break it to you that in a couple hours I'll be putting this on hold once I get out of work.
     
  14. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    You mean like GPGPU accelerators, which also can't run any program you want? Yeah, they didn't take off did they(!)

    Read the EC Horizon 2020 site linked to from the article. Don't just guess, read it.

    Don't need to do any research: I wrote an article on it, remember?
    Always. I'm ace, me.
    No, it isn't. I'm not being paid, for this, y'know. Writing the article is my job; arguing with you in the comments is just a hobby.
    Yes, because a GUI is so important to the server market - which, remember, was one of the two markets you initially said RISC-V wasn't designed for, then backtracked to claiming it wasn't optimised for.

    It does run a GUI, by the way. You can install FreeBSD right now and have your pick of desktop environments.

    Except it does, though, and your arguments otherwise aren't terribly convincing.
    I have to admit, I had trouble parsing this particular bit, so I'll just say this: you know that Intel recently bought an FPGA company and has started building chips with an FPGA on-board, right?
    You did specify, and you were still wrong. Your problem isn't in being vague, it's in being wrong.
    You either disagree with what I'm saying, or you disagree with what you said yourself earlier. Can't have it both ways.
    Honestly, I'm not frustrated. I'm genuinely enjoying myself. I've just had a bath, and now I'm going to watch The Apprentice, a programme about a bunch of people who are also usually wrong.
    Dude, work finished hours ago. I'm not Gareth Halfacree The Journalist right now, I'm Gareth Halfacree The Other Forum User. I don't need a professional attitude. Watch: bum! Bum-bum! Poo!
    I said it was cheaper than going to the pub, not more fun. Do keep up, there's a chap.
    Except how you keep clinging to ever-widening but still incorrect definitions of what you think an FPGA is in an attempt to seem like you weren't wrong.
    Samsies - so why ask me what I'm gaining, if you admit you yourself have no answer to that?
    The bathroom's a little small for all three of us, I have to tell you, but nice try at tugging on the ol' heartstrings. She's in bed now, anyway, so I literally have nothing to do.
    Really? Well, then, I've got two hours to get you to admit that you're wrong! I've made a start already with the "hurr-durr-simulator" bit - just got to work our way through pretty much everything else you've said now!
     
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    OpenCL and CUDA make for relatively easy programming. Sure, GPUs might not run anything you want, but they'll run anything that they can actually take advantage of.
    What you wrote doesn't address what I said.
    I never said a GUI was important to a server, I was just using it as an example of something it currently doesn't do. I still haven't found any evidence of an environment like XFCE or openbox running on RISC-V. Just because you can install it, that doesn't mean it's functional.
    I think that says more about your intelligence than mine.
    Yes... and? That doesn't conclude anything.
    Mhm ok. Whatever you say, Mr. Ace.
    I never said I disagreed with you (regarding FPGAs). You're just ranting about something I wasn't talking about. It feels like I'm just standing here with you yelling "water is wet! BTW, rain falls from the sky!" meanwhile, I'm talking about water at the molecular level.
    Alright, if you insist. Am I supposed to care?
    Yeah... I don't think that's how it works when you post using the same account. An employer might not care what you do on your own time, but if you clock out and stay at your desk while watching porn, I'm sure said employer isn't going to be too happy. Sure, that's an extreme case, but the point is it's an employee being a poor representative of his organization.
    Doesn't make it any less sad, you're just diverting the attention away from the elephant in the room.
    Well, you should have first realized it was kind of a rhetorical question. Do you honestly think I care about the answer? If you were enjoying yourself as much as you claim, you wouldn't be so determined to prove me wrong. The fun of arguing with someone is watching them squirm and break their character, which seemed to happen to you pretty early on.
    What I personally enjoy is the fact that I know you really dislike me, but I don't dislike you. I'm feeling a little disappointed you had to show your true colors like this, but I do respect you.
    Don't worry you've got plenty of time to work on that, it's just going to be delayed for a little over a day. I'll be back eventually!
     
  16. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    So can Fujitsu's chip, so your point is...?

    Look harder.
    Yes, it says I'm very clever. HA! SELF-BURN!

    No, but seriously. I'm not impugning your intelligence, here. I'm not saying you're stupid; I'm saying that you suffer from an unfortunate combination of inability to thoroughly read things and an urgent need to have an opinion on things. Add in the desperate need to not be proven wrong, and you make for a poor forum bedfellow.
    Then rephrase your statement in a way that actually makes sense, and I'll have another crack at addressing it.
    Ooh, I rather like that. Hope it catches on.
    You said, and I quote: "RISC-V is, to my understanding, kind of an in-between approach of MIPS and FPGA," which is both wrong and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what an FPGA is (as I've mentioned, both RISC-V and MIPS are built on FPGAs for testing before silicon is ever taped out.) When I pointed this out to you, you schmidtbagged in an attempt to retcon your statement and said "I get the impression RISC-V is more complex and capable than FPGAs, but less so than MIPS," which is also wrong and demonstrates that you still didn't understand what an FPGA is. You've said you understand 'em, and that you agree with me when I say you can run RISC-V and MIPS cores on an FPGA, yes? So, how does that hold with your claim that RISC-V is "more complex and capable than FPGAs"? How can the simple FPGA run the more complex RISC-V core?
    Judging by the time between replies and your forum activity, you're spending a lot more time on this conversation than I am. So, I don't know: do you care?
    I'm not an employee, though. However, feel free to send a message to the editor if you like. Tell him I said "poo-poo bum-bum." See what response you get.
    What elephant in the room? How about the elephant in the room that's you admitting you're spending hours of work time messing around in internet forums being wrong? HEY, SCHMIDTBAG'S BOSS! HE'S DOING IT AGAIN!
    I'm not sure you care about anything. You certainly don't seem to care about getting things right...
    Have you not been paying attention over the last half-decade or so? This is my character! I'm well known for it!
    I don't really dislike you. I don't know you. I dislike your schmidtbagging all over the forum, but if you didn't schmidtbag I'd have no real opinion on you. Hell, for all I know once you're away from the keyboard and not trying to prove you know substantially more than you actually do, you're a swell guy who rescues puppies and helps little old ladies across the road.
    Oh, goodie. While you're away, try some more Wikipedia research - but actually read the pages this time - and we'll see if you're ready to admit that you've been wrong on a wide range of topics.
     
  17. Cheapskate

    Cheapskate Insane? or just stupid?

    Joined:
    13 May 2007
    Posts:
    10,444
    Likes Received:
    690
    *DING* 1st round bell.
     
  18. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    11,373
    Likes Received:
    1,402
    This thread -

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,597
    Likes Received:
    1,909
    That's literally my favourite xckd. I referenced it further up-thread, but if anyone else other than schmidtbag is reading all this stuff then I'd like to sincerely apologise to them. Turn back now, there is nothing for you here.

    EDIT: Ooh, just looked at my join date. Never mind "the last-half decade or so," I've been arguing with people in this forum for one month short of nine years. Blimey, doesn't time fly?
     
    Last edited: 11 Nov 2016
  20. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,601
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Especially when you're having fun. :p
     

Share This Page