• posted

Hi:

Below is an example of "parallel Hz"

If each clock signal is 1 Hz, and you have a billion of them, staggered such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish, an instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 1 GHz.

The benefit of using a billion 1 Hz clock signals to make a clock rate of 1Ghz is that such a system would not get as hot as system running one 1 GHz clock signal . While the overall amount of heat generated by both systems maybe around the same, the system running a billion 1 Hz clock signals will have less heat per area than the system running one

1 billion Hz clock signal. Hence, the former system is far less vulnerable to thermal damage than the latter.

Let's say two CPUs of different frequencies have been running at the same voltages and amperages and for the same amount of time. The CPU with a higher-frequency will be hotter than the CPU with a lower- frequency.

In a "parallel Hz" device the bits maybe completely in serial and the algorithms and tasks maybe totally non-parallelizable. However, the frequency is still parallel.

The device I am proposing is completely serial except for the clock rate.

My proposed device is completely serial except for the frequency. It uses "parallel Hz" but in terms of everything other than frequency, it is totally serial and non-parallel. Only the clock rate is parallel.

Parallel Hz = a method using N number of 1 Hz clock signals to gain a clock rate of N Hz.

My design has a clock rate of 4 GHz that is obtained by using 4 billion 1 Hz clock signals. But otherwise, it is completely serial.

This design would go great for any application that cannot be efficiently parallelized [in terms of bits]. Examples of such are arithmetics and Boolean logic. Parallel Hz would work for serial-only problems because the bits are still in serial. Parallel Hz does not require that the bits be parallel.

There is a significant difference between "parallel Hz" and "parallel bits".

A parallel printer is an example of a device that uses "parallel bits". This has nothing to do with "parallel Hz" because both serial and parallel devices can use parallel Hz.

Thanks,

• posted

Hmmm....... not seeing Radium over here on Supernews. Don't see the flood messages on Supernews either....... double hmmmmm........ Gee, I wonder if there is a correlation?

• posted

Maybe you should google for "pipelining" - they've been doing that for decades, just not with such ridiculous requirements.

Good Luck! Rich

• posted

Okay. According to my research [on google] pipelining doesn't have much to do with "parallel Hz".

In addition, pipelining uses buffers and has significant latency. Not something I am found of.

My dream PC does not have any buffers or latency.

My dream PC uses RAM chips -- instead of magnetic discs -- in to store information. It is entirely chip-based.

This PC is built in such a way that it freshly generates the correct electric signals ["on the fly"] instead of playing them back from its ROM chips.

There are sets of instructions stored in ROMs. In the case of most PC, these instructions load before the CPU "knows" it has a hard drive or other peripheral devices. However, in my dream PC, those instructions be generated in real-time instead of storing them.

I am aware that EEPROM is reliable, low power, customizable, reprogram- able, cheap and proven. But just out of personal preference, my dream PC is hard-wired in such a way that it does not need any ROM.

Other specs are below. The stuff below also do not need any ROM memory because they are physically-built to generate the signals which correspond to the following.

OS: Windows 98SE Browser: Mozilla Suite 1.8b

No fans, no discs, no moving parts, no ROM [except for the CD/DVD recording/playing and re-writing].

IOW, my dream PC would work perfectly but would not need any moving parts, discs, or fans. The "HDD" would consist of silicon RAM chips in place of disc-platters and electric parts in place of magnetic parts. No moving parts, no noise, no fans, no magnets, no hazardous heat.

To put it simply, what I am describing is a PC that does not need to store any information because all of the signal codings for the info is generated in real-time.

PC reading info from memory = sample playback synth playing back its samples of sounds of an FM synth.

PC generating its signals in real-time = an *actual* FM synth freshly- generating its tones "on the fly".

Yes, I know, the above is a poor analogy but I couldn't think of anything better.

Most importantly, though, my dream PC uses parallel-Hz and is massively-serial!!

• posted

And how does it know how to generate the correct signals?

Isn't it more efficient to calculate static results beforehand and store them for use, than to waste time generating the same instructions all the time?

In other words, your system is not upgradable and has to live with whatever bugs there are for the entire "useful" life of the system since everything's hardwired?

A PC that does not store any information... what good is it for?

And so ?

```--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, ```
• posted

It's built that way.

How does SB16's FM synth "know" how to generate its FM signals? Much in the same way.

Yes. However, due to my personal opinions, I prefer to use the least amount of non-RAM storage/memory necessary.

Well, the system could be made without bugs. Right?

Moreover, upgrades are possible and stored in the RAM chips I described above.

Now, if those chips had their info erased [like formatting an HDD], then the upgrades would have to be performed again -- which is an easy task.

It does store info in the RAM chips.

My point is, parallel-Hz and "parallel bits" are not to be confused with each other.

• posted

So in other words, your machine that does not store data will now have to store data about instruments?

Well, if you truly believe in that, then I would have to say you're delusional :P

So again tihs PC that does not need to store any information has to store upgrades information.

But you said it doesn't need to store any information. :P

Ok then what's the practical implication/advantage/whatever of what you're proposing?

```--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, ```
• posted

No.

Yes, it stores info in the form of RAM. It does not need ROM, though.

However, my dream PC does have the ability to write/read ROM in the form of optical discs [e.g. CDs/DVDs].

Sorry. I meant to say, it does not store any ROM [except for optical discs].

What would normally be stored in ROM, my PC generates in real-time.

The RAM chips store what would normally be stored in the magnetic platters of an HDD.

As I said before, parallel-Hz allows massively-serial devices to operate at extremely high clock rates without needing any cooling equipment.

• posted

Yes, you've SAID that before, but you have yet to give any indication at all that it means anything. As usual, you not only have no clue, you're running a significant deficit....

Bob M.

• posted

How does it not mean anything?

• posted

Just your usual talent at expressing yourself, I guess.

Bob M.

• posted

So you don't think it's important to keep circuits from overheating?

FYI, serial processors running extremely high clock rates without cooling equipment, can easily fry. Either you need a cooling system or parallel-Hz. I would like the latter since I want my PC to have the least amount of moving parts.

• posted

Sure it is. But you clearly don't have a clue about how to do that.

I do realize that you're a troll - I would just like you to consider becoming a more amusing one.

Bob M.

• posted

Use parallel-Hz. Simple.

No offense but I would appreciate serious responses to my questions. Please leave out the dark humor.

• posted

You have yet to ask a serious question.

Bob M.

• posted

How does SB16 ISA's FM synth freshly generate its instructions?

I want my CPU to freshly generate instructions in a similar manner instead of playing them back from ROM.

• posted

In other words, you're describing a PC without HDD, aka a PC with just solid state storage. Which others have mentioned, already exists with systems running off solid state storage using existing technology such as gigabyte sizes CF storage. They even have RAID controllers that run off such RAM.

It doesn't. As I understand it, heat is generated by transistors mainly during switching, i.e. when it's doing something.

Simplistically, a 4Ghz CPU generates 4 giga unit of heat when operating at 4Ghz. A 1Hz CPU of similar output efficiency generates

1unit of heat. But you need 4 billion 1Hz CPU, that translate to a total of 4 giga unit of heat as well. There's no heat advantage to your system.

Furthermore, pins, packaging and wiring takes up space. Your 4 Billion

1Hz CPU will be extremely space and wiring inefficient compared to a single 4Ghz cpu.

The latency to first instruction out is also magnitudes times faster than your 'parallel Hz' system. A modern 4Ghz CPU can always go full speed for 1us to produce results and shutdowns/downclock to conserve power. But your 1Hz system cannot be faster than 1 sec. So a 4Ghz CPU can have the same heat efficiency AND faster output. Your 4Ghz Parallel-Hz system is not comparable.

```--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, ```
• posted

That's a PKB if I ever saw one...and you replied to all the worthless crossposting too.

• posted

On May 6, 3:37 am, a?n?g?...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote: [...]

This is true at 4GHz. If you run as slow as 1Hz, the "leakage" sets the lower limit on the power.

See the bit on "power estimation" in:

If you put zero in as the frequency, you will see some power remains. This part has enough hardware in it to make an extremely dumb processor.

[....]

Actually his idea may be worse than that. If an instruction needs the value produced by a previous one, it can't be started until the other is done. Consider the statement:

IF (A + B) * C > D THEN E = 1

(A + B) takes a cyle

• C takes a cycle

E = 1 takes a cycle

Thats 4 seconds to get the answer.

• posted

Your understanding is close, but not exactly correct. Look at Figure 2 in this Chip Design Magazine article: