←back to thread

180 points onename | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.24s | source
Show context
gdiamos ◴[] No.45898849[source]
Transmeta made a technology bet that dynamic compilation could beat OOO super scalar CPUs in SPEC.

It was wrong, but it was controversial among experts at the time.

I’m glad that they tried it even though it turned out to be wrong. Many of the lessons learned are documented in systems conferences and incorporated into modern designs, ie GPUs.

To me transmeta is a great example of a venture investment. If it would have beaten Intel at SPEC by a margin, it would have dominated the market. Sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of a complex system is to build it.

The same could be said of scaling laws and LLMs. It was theory before Dario, Ilya, OpenAI, et al trained it.

replies(7): >>45898875 #>>45899126 #>>45899335 #>>45901599 #>>45902119 #>>45903852 #>>45906222 #
vlovich123 ◴[] No.45898875[source]
I think more about the timing being incorrect - betting on software in an era of exponential hardware growth was unwise (software performance can’t scale that way). The problem is that you need to marry it with a significantly better CPU/architecture because the JIT is about not losing performance while retaining back compat.

However, if you add it onto a better CPU it’s a fine technique to bet on - case in point Apple’s move away from Intel onto homegrown CPUs.

replies(3): >>45902003 #>>45902290 #>>45905590 #
1. tracker1 ◴[] No.45902290[source]
Exactly... I think that if you look at the accelerator paths that Apple's chips have for x86 emulation combined with software it's pretty nifty. I do wish these were somewhat standardized/licensed/upstreamed so that other arm vendors could use them in a normalized way.