[HN Gopher] 5.5 mm in 1.25 nanoseconds ___________________________________________________________________ 5.5 mm in 1.25 nanoseconds Author : asicsp Score : 283 points Date : 2022-01-13 13:37 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (randomascii.wordpress.com) (TXT) w3m dump (randomascii.wordpress.com) | theandrewbailey wrote: | I thought the later 360 CPUs were curiously designed. They had | the 360 GPU integrated into the die, and had circuits that | purposefully slowed things down to emulate separate chips. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor) | fredoralive wrote: | Presumably to ensure behaviour as near to identical as possible | with earlier multi chip systems. Because they're fixed targets | developers can end up coding right to the limits of console | hardware, and end up with lots of reliance on exact timings | etc. | | Xbox 360 was getting into the era where consoles had OSes and | things should be abstracted through DirectX but I guess | Microsoft decided the safest thing to do was create a clone | with artificial slowdowns rather than risk games pushing the | limit breaking. | | Nowadays consoles can change CPU / GPU microarchitectures | seemingly without problems... | Ciantic wrote: | > I got a copy of the detailed descriptions of the Xbox 360 CPU | and I read it through multiple times | | This way of learning is not taught often enough, we learn it in | school when learning another language (e.g. repeating words over | and over). But in sciences and engineering the repeated reading | of the material is not usually encouraged or talked about. | | It would be interesting to see what the material was, it's not | linked, but it must have been really detailed. | 123pie123 wrote: | this is my standard way of learning stuff, | | I don't repeatedly read books just to memorise or remember | stuff, but I repeatedly read books because you learn and fully | digest certain concepts which are then needed before moving on | to other concepts | JasonFruit wrote: | This is exactly it for me: on your first reading, there are | underlying concepts you kind of get, but don't fully | understand until you grasp what's built on top of them. Then, | with that fuller grasp, you can go back and increase your | understanding of the underlying material, which lets you | understand the superstructure better -- and the effect | persists for several iterations if the topic is involved | enough. | | Short version: don't be too concerned if you're not | completely confident on the details the first time through, | because it will make a lot more sense next time around. | 123pie123 wrote: | I also have the same approach for new projects | | I appologise in advance for the fact I will repeat | questions to people and get it wrong initially, it's part | of the learning process | foobarian wrote: | Specifically for CPU manuals, detailed reading used to pay off | especially back when every cycle counted. You would spend days | rereading tucked away sections describing some weird extension | or edge case hoping to harness it for your game/program and get | more speed out of it. | bostonsre wrote: | I think it depends alot on your rate of digestion (or | understanding? can't find the right word...) of a piece of | material. Being dropped in an alien book can make it tough to | grasp everything on first pass. If you already have a lot of | knowledge that links to the topics being discussed it is a lot | easier to grok it in one pass. | brucedawson wrote: | The material was all proprietary/NDA and I don't think it's | ever been shared publicly, sorry. | | The main point I wanted to make with how I became the CPU | expert was not actually the "reading multiple times" in order | to deeply understand it (although that was important) but | rather the fact that I chose to become the CPU expert rather | than having it assigned to me. | | It was one of many times that I became the acknowledged expert | of some area, and perhaps therefore in charge of that area, | just by working hard in that area until I was "obviously" the | expert. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | It depends, as always. A CPU is a whole unit, where (I think) | it's worth knowing all the details. A programming language's | standard library would be more about having a high level | overview of what is available, and not a rote reading of all | APIs. | | ...Unless you're into that kind of thing, and I do believe it | will help "pick the right tool for the job", instead of writing | your own or picking a random library off the internet. Maybe I | should make a habit of it, I'm quite invested in Go at the | moment. | | On the other hand, probably a bigger factor is 'arsedness'. I | don't have the attention span or interest to read something | back-to-front, or maybe not anymore? I don't know for sure. But | there's not many things that grip me enough to really draw me | in. | | ...except writing shitpost comments on HN. | erosenbe0 wrote: | Yes, I teach my students to always at least look at the | overview and see what is available and the taxonomy or | ontology! | | Don't treat all sources as a mere dictionary of self-evident | structure. Quitting just because the blurb of immediate | interest has been rendered leaves out key opportunities to | learn what is available. | scoutt wrote: | > repeated reading of the material | | I taught myself almost everything I know, and repeated reading | is the method I usually use. I don't memorize, but instead I | attack any material to learn by "reading sweeps" (this only | applies to topics I know nothing about). | | I first read all the material and, even if I don't understand a | word about anything, I keep going until the end. Then I read | everything again from start to end and here I can definitely | say that I'm starting to understand. Then again, and this time | I allow myself to go back and clarify something I didn't | understand. When I feel confident, I try to implement something | with the reading material at hand. | | I can't recall any material that I recently learnt that way but | "The definitive guide to the ARM Cortex M3" by Joseph Yiu is a | book I remember (back in 2007 when I started with Cortex | microcontrollers). | billti wrote: | That the approach I've settled on that works best for me. I | used to get frustrated that there wasn't "one source" of | information that could take me on the journey from novice to | expert, and that there was "so much to choose from" on most | topics. | | Now I happily browse through as many sources as I can find, | noting which I think are high quality even if above my head, | and absorbing what I can for my current knowledge level. Then | I'll revisit the good stuff and scan it to pick up the next | layer deep, and repeat over select material until I feel I | have what I need. | | The other thing I do is make flashcards as I go (I use an app | called Quizlet, but I know there are lots out there). | Especially with a new subject, just basic terms can be | overwhelming at first. I capture want I feel is important in | a question & answer format, and just fire it up when I have | to a few mins to run through some flashcards (e.g. waiting | for a meeting, sitting on the lav, etc.). It seems to work | really well for me. | tomcam wrote: | Impressive. I'm just now learning how to learn that way, and | I'm at retirement age. My way is much less efficient, because | I stop and research each thing I don't understand until I | feel comfortable moving on. Highly inefficient, I now | believe. My kid does what you do and learns way faster than I | ever did. | Tepix wrote: | I used to read a lot of books when learning about computer | science topics. I'm sure i've read the Camel book at least 4 | times over several years. A well written book like that can | really do much more than just provide a reference. | | A lot of documentation these days is mostly references that you | look up when you need the nitty gritty details and the bigger | picture is not documented as well. | ehnto wrote: | I think rote memorization is less useful in engineering than | critical thinking/problem solving, that is probably why. It's | not really important you know X value of Y part by heart, you | need to know how to get X value of any possible part you | encounter. | | To learn a language, you can't problem solve your way to the | solution, you either know it or you don't, and when you use it | in practice (in a conversation) you can't look up what you need | to know on the spot. | wpietri wrote: | We're not talking about rote memorization here. We're talking | about deeply _studying_ something. | | In the mid-90s I set up my then-employer's first WAN. Cisco | 2501 with T1s for in-city links and frame relay for inter- | city/international. As part of our Cisco contract, we got a | full manual set, which was maybe 24" of shelf space. In my | spare time over a couple of weeks, I sat down and read the | whole thing. Then I went back and actually studied the parts | that were relevant, mostly by reading and re-reading until it | all made sense to me. | | On top of that, I added a lot of practical experimentation | with the gear. But foundational for me was really | understanding the perspective of the people who made it. | tomcam wrote: | Aargh the thing that amazes me about people like you is the | ability to push through when the docs don't explain | something before it's referenced. How do you get past that | point so quickly? | tanseydavid wrote: | It is important to develop the confidence that you are | not actually wasting time reading something which feels | as if you understand almost none of it. | | It is counter-intuitive because it tends to feel a little | bit like a small child who has not yet learned to read, | picking up a book and pretending to read by mimicking | what the behavior looks and sounds like. | wpietri wrote: | On the first pass? I usually just let it be. Maybe I'll | mark it or make a note, but probably not. I've spent my | whole life not understanding almost everything right | away. If it's important, it'll come up again. It's sort | of like starting a new job: you don't know who everybody | is right away but you get it over time. | | On later passes, I'm more inclined to jump around. | tomcam wrote: | Thank you! I never tire of learning how people learn. | wpietri wrote: | For what it's worth, I think this "deep study" mode of | learning is perhaps less useful today in tech. We have a | lot more things we need to work with with now, and a | searchable internet means we can draft off other people's | learning a lot more. Deep understanding is both less | possible and less useful for the bulk of us, who are mainly | integrating lots of libraries, services, tools, and | frameworks. | | But for every given topic, we still need deep experts, like | Bruce Dawson was for this processor at Microsoft. So I | think this mode is still very valuable, so I agree with | Ciantic: this way of learning is something everybody should | have at least some practice in. | thereddaikon wrote: | What he is describing is just RTFM. It shouldn't be | groundbreaking or really up for debate yet here we are. | Manuals are written expressly for this purpose. A | properly written manual has everything you need to know | to get it working in a practical sense. Theory is a | different matter altogether. But we are talking about | engineering not science. Engineering is very much in | realm of practical application. | | If reading a manual front to back for a bit of tech | doesn't tell you everything you need to know to use it | properly then its not a good manual. | onemoresoop wrote: | This applies well for some manuals and poorly for others. | When technology changes fast you're likely to read a lot | of deprecated stuff. It's an unfortunate state of affairs | we find ourselves in. | kryogen1c wrote: | > I think rote memorization is less useful in engineering | than critical thinking/problem solving | | i think this is exactly the right take in entirely the wrong | direction. | | proficiency and mastery are about committing more and more | complex things into sub- or un- concious action; muscle | memory as it were. grandmaster chess players dont think about | solving puzzles that stump novices, they absorb whole board | states and many/all permutations instantly. BJJ black belts | dont have to think about arm bars, they anticipate complex | possibilities of moves and countermoves that a novice simply | cannot fathom. this is as true in engineering as any other | field. a simple litmus test: is there a difference between a | college grad and a 40-years experienced engineer? of course | there is | | I think GPs point is exactly right. there is a certain lost | magic to simply smashing your brain into something and | absorbing as much as possible. big eyes, big ears, ego to | attempt but humble to fail. one might call such a person a | hacker. | | edit: see The Art of Learning, Waitzkin | | https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0743277465/ | im3w1l wrote: | Memorizing facts is necessary to make them accessible to your | critical thinking and problem solving though. | | Like it's much easier to find a connection between two things | you _know_ about compared to two things you _could look up_. | [deleted] | tom-thistime wrote: | Sounds like mostly gate delay? I'll share my ignorance. For metal | traces on silicon the physical "speed of light in this material" | propagation delay should only be around 9-10 ns/m. Call it 10 | ps/mm, about 55ps in 5.5mm. Or else if the trace has high enough | resistance (maybe not metal), another thing to worry about is | charging the line capacitance. That is longer for longer lines, | but it is a different kind of delay from speed-of-light. | Tuna-Fish wrote: | Somewhat similar is Grace Hopper explaining the nanosecond: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw | mattnewport wrote: | I was working on the central technology team at EA during the run | up to the launch of the Xbox 360 and some of us got early access | to help prepare for the new architecture. | | I was blown away by the amount of technical detail we were | getting access to and how clearly explained it was. Much of that | was thanks to Bruce Dawson. I remember devouring everything I | could find that he'd written and it was a fascinating crash | course in CPU architecture for a relatively young software | engineer at the time with little hardware background. Thanks | Bruce! | discreditable wrote: | I am blown away by the wafer of Xbox 360 CPUs hanging on this | guy's wall. That was a kingly gift! | phkahler wrote: | >> I am blown away by the wafer of Xbox 360 CPUs hanging on | this guy's wall. That was a kingly gift! | | Yeah, the only place I've seen a full wafer on display is a | display case in the lobby of a chip company office building. I | wonder how often some process goes out of whack and they get an | entire known-bad wafer that still looks great? | londons_explore wrote: | You can buy complete wafers on ebay for a few bucks, so I'd | guess it's pretty common. | | I think many of the alignment steps during manufacturing | involve making a wafer, seeing how misaligned it is using an | electron microscope, adjusting all the machines, then making | another wafer. Repeat until the wafers start working. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Yeah I'm seeing them for like $80 for 20-30 year old | wafers, it'd make a pretty neat decorative piece: | https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=cpu+wafer | | reminds me of when I had some 'trash' leftover CPU's, | chips, or memory units; drill a hole in it and you have a | keychain gadget. | tomcam wrote: | Wow. Those are beautiful. If I had wall space left I'd | start a collection. | [deleted] | bostonsre wrote: | Anyone know how much that would cost roughly? Wondering if they | had a big reject bin that needed to be disposed of. | andreareina wrote: | Guessing that the cost for a wafer at a state-of-the-art | process has gone up over the years but not _that_ much, in | the vicinity of ~$10,000? | | https://twitter.com/chiakokhua/status/1306437988801486848 | sourced from | | https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/AI- | Chips%E2%8... p45 | bostonsre wrote: | Pretty pricey for a plaque.. either they really liked him | or they had some rejects I would guess. | marcan_42 wrote: | They always have rejects. Actually, that's almost | certainly an unfinished wafer. Modern flip chips don't | look like that finished - you have an array of pads and | power distribution covering all the cool features. | | I think there's a good chance that wafer doesn't have any | metal layers, or only M1 at most. It looks the same as | the chips I've delayered and removed all or almost all of | the metal layers from. For example, here's a shot of the | Wii's GPU with the metal layers scraped off: | | https://marcan.st/transf/hollywood_die.jpg | qsmi wrote: | It depends, is the wafer passing or failing the | manufacturing tests? This is an important consideration. | monocasa wrote: | The manufacturing pipeline is generally pretty long too, | and you can stop wafers midflight if you're just going to | throw them out anyway. So for instance, if you have some | B0 wafers that have enough metal layers that you couldn't | easily change them into B1 wafers half way through the | process, you might end up with it being cheaper to end up | with unusable wafers for plaques and what have you. The | fab is generally happy to have the extra capacity even | for tail end of the design. There's generally some cheap | customers that'll slot in wherever there's gaps. | bowmessage wrote: | It was always rumored around the FAB that dropping a case | of wafers was akin to totaling a Ferrari. Maybe ~20 wafers | in a case, so this math checks out! | nashashmi wrote: | I have seen these hang on someone's wall. Because they made the | ATI cpu. I thought the whole thing was one big cpu. I was not | impressed. | | Now I am! 15 years late. | mring33621 wrote: | All I want to say is that the XBOX 360 was one of the best | consoles EVER! I still happily play games on mine. | tomcam wrote: | The post itself was a pleasure to read. The comments are a mini | education on how to learn. I strongly recommend reading through | both! | cmpaul wrote: | Technical aspects aside (and congrats on the achievement!), I | love the implications of the author's "Aside": | | 1. An otherwise inconvenient situation (snowpocalypse) was turned | into a learning opportunity. I would've probably turned it into a | Netflix binge. | | 2. People took the time to detail the CPU design in a document. | I'm always looking for examples showing the benefits of | documenting design (I'm an EM) and it's rare to find one that | changes someone's life trajectory. :) | tomcam wrote: | Agreed. I'm a pathetically slow learner so situations like #1 | were always an essential part of how I got ahead of the curve. | #2 is very cool also... but what is an EM? | cshokie wrote: | Based on the context most likely "Engineering Manager. | brucedawson wrote: | 2004 was a bit early for a Netflix binge. Plus, the power was | out, so there goes that plan. | | The documentation that I read showed the pipelines in great | deal, but they were badly presented such that the flows of data | and time were obscured. My main contribution was to straighten | out and simplify the diagrams, and then animate them. Well, and | then explain them. It was definitely a CPU that required that | level of detail. | ridaj wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_velocity - my understanding | is that the speed is driven by interactions between the trace and | its surrounding material, which creates capacitance and | inductance along the path | marcan_42 wrote: | The speed of light story is a fun conjecture, but given the | discrepancy (30cm vs 5.5mm), I don't think that's it. Light | travels slower in wires but not _that_ much slower, and increased | design clocks don 't explain the discrepancy either. | | I think it's more likely that this is an artifact of the | interconnect design. For example, the interconnect may be | designed as a tree, where the path from core 0 to the L2 only | visits a branch but the path to core1/2 has to traverse the root | of the tree. If each stage adds a clock cycle, there's your 4 | clock cycles: one to go to the root, one back down to the other | side, and then the whole thing in the other direction for the | reply from L2 with the data. | | If the interconnect had been a ring bus instead, you'd find that | the latency from cores 0 and 2 is the same, but higher for core 1 | - assuming no other endpoints in the ring, but that's obviously | not the case, since I/O needs to be on the bus too. It's possible | he got the core numbers wrong in the die shot, and core 0 is the | bottom left core. Then if the ring goes clockwise L2 - core 0 - | core 1 - core 2 - I/O on the top right - L2, that's how you end | up with core 0 being closer to the L2 in terms of clock cycles | than the others, and the observation would be consistent with | this design too. | [deleted] | brucedawson wrote: | Reading from L2 requires sending down a request and then | waiting for the response. This makes me realize that the actual | speed is 5.5 mm in 0.625 ns because it's a two cycle delay in | each direction. I'll update the article. | | But, this request/response means that a ring bus seems unlikely | because a unidirectional ring bus should make the sum of the | request/response times identical for all CPUs, if I'm | understanding correctly. | marcan_42 wrote: | I was thinking bidirectional ring bus in my model; indeed if | it were unidirectional you'd end up with the same result for | all CPUs. | | FWIW, the Cell used a bidirectional ring bus network, and | it's of the same generation and happens to share technology | heritage with the XCPU... (very similar PowerPC core) :-) | kens wrote: | You mentioned a document with a detailed description of the | internals of the Xbox 360 CPU. I don't suppose that document | is available to the public? | BeeOnRope wrote: | Speed of signal propagation though wires on modern chips is | _much_ slower than the speed of light. A bit less so on an old | Xbox chips, but still a big difference. | | On a modern core the delay is enough that you can't come close | to reaching from side one side of a core (not to mention CPU) | to another in a single cycle. | AshamedCaptain wrote: | The speed of light is a useless metric when measuring | propagation delay of a signal in a wire since there is load of | factors that limit it much more significantly, such as the | width of the conductor / capacitance / resistance, the strength | of the driver, etc. Starting point: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmore_delay | | And if you are going to do anything useful (e.g. toggling the | signal), the max frequency at which you can do it is even lower | than the limit set by the propagation delay. | | In any case, even TFA says the reason pretty explicitly: it's | actually 4 pipelined stages, thus 4 clock cycles delay. | Probably it was way too much power+area to drive the distance | in one cycle. | entangledqubit wrote: | Random historical context (IIRC), in the early 2000s (around | when the chip discussed was made) chip designers were dealing | with the transition from gate/switch delays being a dominant | factor to signal wire propagation delays becoming very | significant. This was a side effect of the improving | processes making smaller chip features. | 123pie123 wrote: | this is an interesting video (to me anyway!!) on the speed of | electrons vs fields | | The Big Misconception About Electricity.. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY | [deleted] | Dumble wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 | krupan wrote: | ElectroBOOM replied to this: https://youtu.be/iph500cPK28 | jaywalk wrote: | That video is hilariously wrong, which seems to be a common | theme for Veritasium lately. I can't tell if he legitimately | believes what he's saying, or if he produces these seemingly- | correct-but-not videos to drive up engagement and views. | scrollaway wrote: | Care to share the hilarity with the rest of the class? | Tostino wrote: | Reply video here: https://youtu.be/iph500cPK28 | | Edit: apparently too slow, sorry for the noise. | aemreunal wrote: | Disclaimer: I don't understand nearly enough about the | physics of electricity, but this was a popular response | video by ElectroBOOM that Veritasium also responded to in | the comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iph500cPK28 | mannykannot wrote: | To be clear, you will not find that Veritasium is wrong | here (whether hilariously or otherwise); it supports the | essential features of the original claims. | tsimionescu wrote: | He is extremely misleading, if not technically wrong. The | Poynting vector has nothing to do with why some small | amount of current is temporarily induced into the light | bulb. The actual electrical energy flows along the wires | (inside and out). In an unrelated phenomenon, you | transmit some tiny amount of electrical power directly | through the air/vacuum between the battery and the bulb. | In a different configuration, or if you inserted certain | kinds of reflective materials, you could block (most of) | this energy from ever reaching the bulb, without any | change whatsoever in the current flowing along the wires. | Also, if you submerged the whole circuit (or just the | space around the battery and bulb) in a dielectric | material with a low speed of light (say, in a piece of | rock), you would get a vastly slower and weaker current, | with no effect on the current flowing through the wires. | | Even the part where he explains the problem with the | chain metaphor is wrong. If you actually had a mechanical | chain and an engine moving it back and forth, you could | extract energy from the movement of the chain either by | exploiting friction (to heat up something, just like a | resistor does) or by using gears that resist movement in | the opposite direction (e.g. slipping the chain) to | achieve movement in a single direction. There's nothing | all that mysterious about how we extract energy from | electricity, at least in practice. | | In fact, you could even get an equivalent of the small | induced curent: if you recreate his extremely long | circuit with a motor instead of the battery and an | extremely sensitive motion detector instead of the light | bulb 1m away, you would detect some motion [1m/speed of | sound in material connecting them] seconds after the | motor is started, assuming you are not floating in a | perfect vacuum; and then vastly higher motion after | 300,000km/speed of sound in chain seconds later. | | Nothing more mysterious going on with the EM field. | tom-thistime wrote: | Have you read the slides cited in the description on | YouTube, and found the error? There's both a theoretical | argument (which I haven't followed), and lab results using | a 15m (?) transmission line. Both seem to confirm the claim | in the video. If they're wrong, I'd really like to | understand where the error is. | | E&M can be a little tricky, even for experienced circuit | designers. | sebzim4500 wrote: | The slides look correct to me but the video massively | misrepresents what is actually going on. For example, you | could cut the wire at both ends and the answer would not | change, so the fact that there is a 'circuit' is | irrelevant. | tsimionescu wrote: | The video gives a wrong impression that most current is | flowing along the Poynting vector. In fact, only a tiny | amount of current is flowing directly, and the vast | majority is flowing along the wires, as expected. The | tiny amount flowing directly through the air is much | better understood as an antenna effect, unrelated to | regular current flow, and has nothing really to do with | the Poynting vector. | tom-thistime wrote: | I agree that current doesn't follow the Poynting vector. | Power follows the Poynting vector. That's true for | antennas and for transmission lines. | tsimionescu wrote: | Yes, but most power is in fact following the Poynting | vector along the wires, not the direct Poynting vector | between the battery and the bulb, as the video | misleadingly suggests (but doesn't outright claim). | pja wrote: | His presentation is not very clear & imo the way he answers | the question is not actually helpful in actually | understanding what's going on, but he is correct that | current will flow in the far side almost immediately. As is | made clearer in the documents he shared which contain his | discussions with actual physicists, that current will be | much smaller than the final current that flows all the way | round the circuit, but it is there nevertheless. (In fact | that current will initially flow whether or not the two | halves of the flat ring are connected - if you think about | it things have to work like this, because the middle of the | system cannot "know" whether the far ends are connected | until light has had time to get there & back. Relativity is | absolute.) | | Take a look at the video made by YouTuber AlphaPhoenix | where he constructs the entire thing on a smaller scale and | demonstrates the effect with an oscilloscope: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 | | One way of viewing what's going on here is to consider the | two sides as a pair of large dipole antennas. When the | switch (or in AlphaPheonix's case, a transistor) is turned | on, a pulse of electrons is pushed down one antenna, | setting up a transient wave in the electromagnetic field | around it which induces a current in the opposite direction | in the "receiving" antenna on the other side. This happens | regardless of whether the wired are connected in a loop or | not! | | Physics is great. | [deleted] | krupan wrote: | In chips because of the layers of conductors and insulators you | are actually charging a capacitor, not just sending a signal | down a lone wire. | kens wrote: | Yes, a long bus is like a resistor-capacitor delay circuit. | You can speed it up by using a bigger driver for more | current, but that takes up more space and adds its own delay. | I expect that the bus in the Xbox is split in two, with a | second driver in the middle. This makes the first half | faster, but the second half of the bus probably takes another | clock cycle, which would explain the observed behavior. | AshamedCaptain wrote: | That's how all conductors work, not just "in chips due to | layers of conductors and insulators". The thing is that in | most situations you just model the conductor away as a | "perfect ideal wire" and everything usually just works since | you don't care about these small delays and/or you have very | high power. But when you enter sub-nanosecond and/or sub-mW | territory... | jhgb wrote: | But IC interconnects have a very small cross section, so | for them this problem is much more pressing. | tom-thistime wrote: | You're always driving a waveguide that has inductance and | capacitance per unit length. But when resistance is high | enough you are just charging a big distributed capacitor. | It's a different regime from the high-conductivity | situation (which looks like a transmission line). Either | picture could apply at sub-ns speeds, it depends mainly on | the resistance. | jmrm wrote: | At that distance, depending of the frequency of those buses, it | could have some distortion and some latency due to being a | transmission line. If this happened, the team that made that CPU | would add some kind buffers at the receiving side to get the data | at a correct time, and that could be most of the induced lag. | | Adding that to the fact that the three cores have a shared common | bus, and there are gone to be some kind of signalling about who | is using it (that we don't know), this could be reasonable. | | The Xbox 360 CPUs works at 3.2 GHz, that's 0.3125 ns per cycle, | and four cycles make those 1.25 ns. I won't be surprised if those | who made the CPU designed to have 4 cycles of delay to cores 1 | and 2 to be sure there isn't any kind of glitch reading the data | from the port. | SeasonalEnnui wrote: | You meant 0.3125ns per cycle, the rest of your comment | triggered a thought: | | It's common in FPGA/microcontroller designs to have 'input | synchronizers' on inputs from long digital lines (on any input | where you can't guarantee synchronicity) to prevent | metastability problems, especially when crossing clock domains. | I think that's likely the case here, there are both long lines | and different clock domains. | jmrm wrote: | Oops! Totally true: 0.3125 ns per cycle | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-13 23:00 UTC)