←back to thread

486 points dbreunig | 1 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 #
theresistor ◴[] No.41864928[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.

It's also often about offload. Depending on the use case, the CPU and GPU may be busy with other tasks, so the NPU is free bandwidth that can be used without stealing from the others. Consider AI-powered photo filters: the GPU is probably busy rendering the preview, and the CPU is busy drawing UI and handling user inputs.

replies(1): >>41865137 #
cakoose ◴[] No.41865137[source]
Offload only makes sense if there are other advantages, e.g. speed, power.

Without those, wouldn't it be better to use the NPUs silicon budget on more CPU?

replies(4): >>41865175 #>>41865703 #>>41865735 #>>41868502 #
1. mapt ◴[] No.41868502[source]
For PC CPUs, there are already so many watts per square millimeter that many of the top tiers of the recent generations are running thermally throttled 24/7; More cooling improves performance rather than temperatures because it allows more of the cores to run at 'full' speed or at 'boost' speed. This kills their profitable market segmentation.

In this environment it makes some sense to use more efficient RISC cores, and to spread out cores a bit with dedicated bits that either aren't going to get used all the time, or that are going to be used at lower power draws, and combining cores with better on-die memory availability (extreme L2/L3 caches) and other features. Apple even has some silicon in the power section left as empty space for thermal reasons.

Emily (formerly Anthony) on LTT had a piece on the Apple CPUs that pointed out some of the inherent advantages of the big-chip ARM SOC versus the x86 motherboard-daughterboard arrangement as we start to hit Moore's Wall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFQ3LkVF5sM