DeepSeek launched a free, open-source large language model in late December, claiming it was developed in just two months at a cost of under $6 million.
If I remember it correctly (I learned this stuff 3 decades ago) they were basically an improvement on logic circuits without clocks (think stuff like NAND and XOR gates - digital signals just go in and the result comes out on the other side with no delay beyond that caused by analog elements such as parasitical inductances and capacitances, so without waiting for a clock transition).
The thing is, back then clocking of digital circuits really took off (because it’s WAY simpler to have things done one stage at a time with a clock synchronizing when results are read from one stage and sent to the next stage, since different gates have different delays and so making sure results are only read after the slowest path is done is complicated) so all CPU and GPU architecture nowadays are based on having a clock, with clock transitions dictating things like when is each step of processing a CPU/GPU instruction started.
Circuits without clocks have the capability of being way faster than circuits with clocks if you can manage the problem of different digital elements having different delays in producing results I think what we’re seeing here is a revival of using circuits without clocks (or at least with blocks of logic done between clock transitions which are much longer and more complex than the processing of a single GPU instruction).
I’m not making an argument against it, just clarifying were it sits as technology.
As I see it, it’s like electric cars - a technology that was overtaken by something else in the early days when that domain was starting even though it was the first to come out (the first cars were electric and the ICE engine was invented later) and which has now a chance to be successful again because many other things have changed in the meanwhile and we’re a lot closes to the limits of the tech that did got widely adopted back in the early days.
It actually makes a lot of sense to improve the speed of what programming can do by getting it to be capable of also work outside the step-by-step instruction execution straight-jacked which is the CPU/GPU clock.
They were kind of pioneering the space, but about to collapse. AMD did good by scooping them up.
FPGAs have been a thing for ages.
If I remember it correctly (I learned this stuff 3 decades ago) they were basically an improvement on logic circuits without clocks (think stuff like NAND and XOR gates - digital signals just go in and the result comes out on the other side with no delay beyond that caused by analog elements such as parasitical inductances and capacitances, so without waiting for a clock transition).
The thing is, back then clocking of digital circuits really took off (because it’s WAY simpler to have things done one stage at a time with a clock synchronizing when results are read from one stage and sent to the next stage, since different gates have different delays and so making sure results are only read after the slowest path is done is complicated) so all CPU and GPU architecture nowadays are based on having a clock, with clock transitions dictating things like when is each step of processing a CPU/GPU instruction started.
Circuits without clocks have the capability of being way faster than circuits with clocks if you can manage the problem of different digital elements having different delays in producing results I think what we’re seeing here is a revival of using circuits without clocks (or at least with blocks of logic done between clock transitions which are much longer and more complex than the processing of a single GPU instruction).
Yes, but I’m not sure what your argument is here.
Least resistance to an outcome (in this case whatever you program it to do) is faster.
Applicable to waterfall flows, FPGA makes absolute sense for the neural networks as they operate now.
I’m confused on your argument against this and why GPU is better. The benchmarks are out in the world, go look them up.
I’m not making an argument against it, just clarifying were it sits as technology.
As I see it, it’s like electric cars - a technology that was overtaken by something else in the early days when that domain was starting even though it was the first to come out (the first cars were electric and the ICE engine was invented later) and which has now a chance to be successful again because many other things have changed in the meanwhile and we’re a lot closes to the limits of the tech that did got widely adopted back in the early days.
It actually makes a lot of sense to improve the speed of what programming can do by getting it to be capable of also work outside the step-by-step instruction execution straight-jacked which is the CPU/GPU clock.