←back to thread

486 points dbreunig | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
isusmelj ◴[] No.41863460[source]
I think the results show that just in general the compute is not used well. That the CPU took 8.4ms and GPU took 3.2ms shows a very small gap. I'd expect more like 10x - 20x difference here. I'd assume that the onnxruntime might be the issue. I think some hardware vendors just release the compute units without shipping proper support yet. Let's see how fast that will change.

Also, people often mistake the reason for an NPU is "speed". That's not correct. The whole point of the NPU is rather to focus on low power consumption. To focus on speed you'd need to get rid of the memory bottleneck. Then you end up designing your own ASIC with it's own memory. The NPUs we see in most devices are part of the SoC around the CPU to offload AI computations. It would be interesting to run this benchmark in a infinite loop for the three devices (CPU, NPU, GPU) and measure power consumption. I'd expect the NPU to be lowest and also best in terms of "ops/watt"

replies(8): >>41863552 #>>41863639 #>>41864898 #>>41864928 #>>41864933 #>>41866594 #>>41869485 #>>41870575 #
AlexandrB ◴[] No.41863552[source]
> Also, people often mistake the reason for an NPU is "speed". That's not correct. The whole point of the NPU is rather to focus on low power consumption.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the real real reason for an NPU is marketing. "Oh look, NVDA is worth $3.3T - let's make sure we stick some AI stuff in our products too."

replies(8): >>41863644 #>>41863654 #>>41865529 #>>41865968 #>>41866150 #>>41866423 #>>41867045 #>>41870116 #
itishappy ◴[] No.41863654[source]
I assume you're both right. I'm sure NPUs exist to fill a very real niche, but I'm also sure they're being shoehorned in everywhere regardless of product fit because "AI big right now."
replies(2): >>41864463 #>>41865770 #
brookst ◴[] No.41865770[source]
The shoehorning only works if there is buyer demand.

As a company, if customers are willing to pay a premium for a NPU, or if they are unwilling to buy a product without one, it is not your place to say “hey we don’t really believe in the AI hype so we’re going to sell products people don’t want to prove a point”

replies(3): >>41865911 #>>41865951 #>>41866019 #
1. MBCook ◴[] No.41865911[source]
Is there demand? Or do they just assume there is?

If they shove it in every single product and that’s all anyone advertises, whether consumers know it will help them or not, you don’t get a lot of choice.

If you want the latest chip, you’re getting AI stuff. That’s all there is to it.

replies(1): >>41866176 #
2. Terr_ ◴[] No.41866176[source]
"The math is clear: 100% of our our car sales come from models with our company logo somewhere on the front, which shows incredible customer desire for logos. We should consider offering a new luxury trim level with more of them."

"How many models to we have without logos?"

"Huh? Why would we do that?"

replies(1): >>41866278 #
3. MBCook ◴[] No.41866278[source]
Heh. Yeah more or less.

To some degree I understand it, because as we’ve all noticed computers have pretty much plateaued for the average person. They last much longer. You don’t need to replace them every two years anymore because the software isn’t out stripping them so fast.

AI is the first thing to come along in quite a while that not only needs significant power but it’s just something different. It’s something they can say your old computer doesn’t have that the new one does. Other than being 5% faster or whatever.

So even if people don’t need it, and even if they notice they don’t need it, it’s something to market on.

The stuff up thread about it being the hotness that Wall Street loves is absolutely a thing too.

replies(1): >>41866459 #
4. ddingus ◴[] No.41866459{3}[source]
That was all true nearly 10 years ago. And it has only improved. Almost any computer one finds these days is capable of the basics.