Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

AMD Details High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) DRAM, Pushes Over 100GB/s Per Stack 98

Posted by timothy
from the lower-power-higher-interest dept.
MojoKid writes: Recently, a few details of AMD's next-generation Radeon 300-series graphics cards have trickled out. Today, AMD has publicly disclosed new info regarding their High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) technology that will be used on some Radeon 300-series and APU products. Currently, a relatively large number of GDDR5 chips are necessary to offer sufficient capacity and bandwidth for modern GPUs, which means significant PCB real estate is consumed. On-chip integration is not ideal for DRAM because it is not size or cost effective with a logic-optimized GPU or CPU manufacturing process. HBM, however, brings the DRAM as close to possible to the logic die (GPU) as possible. AMD partnered with Hynix and a number of companies to help define the HBM specification and design a new type of memory chip with low power consumption and an ultra-wide bus width, which was eventually adopted by JEDEC 2013. They also develop a DRAM interconnect called an "interposer," along with ASE, Amkor, and UMC. The interposer allows DRAM to be brought into close proximity with the GPU and simplifies communication and clocking. HBM DRAM chips are stacked vertically, and "through-silicon vias" (TSVs) and "bumps" are used to connect one DRAM chip to the next, and then to a logic interface die, and ultimately the interposer. The end result is a single package on which the GPU/SoC and High Bandwidth Memory both reside. 1GB of GDDR5 memory (four 256MB chips), requires roughly 672mm2. Because HBM is vertically stacked, that same 1GB requires only about 35mm2. The bus width on an HBM chip is 1024-bits wide, versus 32-bits on a GDDR5 chip. As a result, the High Bandwidth Memory interface can be clocked much lower but still offer more than 100GB/s for HBM versus 25GB/s with GDDR5. HBM also requires significantly less voltage, which equates to lower power consumption.

Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States 318

Posted by timothy
from the when-monopolists-attack dept.
New submitter jeffengel writes: The push to regulate services like Uber and Lyft has spread through state legislatures nationwide. At least 15 states have passed ridesharing laws in 2015, joining Colorado, California, and Illinois from last year. More could follow, with bills pending in Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and others. All this activity has led to new clashes with companies, city leaders, and consumers. Ridesharing bills have stalled or been killed off in Texas, Florida, New Mexico, and Mississippi. Meanwhile, Uber has exited Kansas and is threatening to leave New Jersey and Oregon, while Lyft has ceased operations in Houston, Columbus, and Tacoma. How this plays out could affect the companies' expansion plans, as well as the future of transportation systems worldwide.

Comment: Re:What if I want the ad fueled web to die? (Score 1) 616

by rsborg (#49715963) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

There is no right to make a profit. http protocol is displayed by a backend interpretation. I can do what I want with the data I fetch.

In addition I want the concept of ad revenue generated content to die.

Well then you better be concerned because according to TFA, they're going after ad networks but not ads within social networks. How logical is that? All this means is that Google's monopoly will be diverted to Facebook, and the same shit continues, except Zuck gets all the $$.

Comment: It's not a failure, this WOsD (Score 2) 143

The War on (some non-patentable, not pushed by Big Pharma) Drugs is a failure.

Ah, but I disagree. Its purpose is manifold, but the two biggies are the erosion of the constitution to keep the prison/security state growing and fed, and the profits of Big Pharma.

This sad state of affairs has been slowly engineered over decades by some very wealthy and influential people as a goal to increase their power and wealth.

It's not a failure - it's a wild success. Sucks that you and I aren't on that list of winners though.

Comment: On Individuality (Score 2) 42

by causality (#49677637) Attached to: Studying the Roots of Individuality

What I observe with the majority of people: they are fully capable of being free-thinking individuals, but the main way they use this capability is to follow the crowd.

With herd animals that are prey creatures (i.e. cattle, sheep) this makes sense in terms of survival. There is safety in numbers. Stray from the herd, and you get targeted by ever-present predators.

With humans, who are at the top of the food chain and generally have no natural predators, it's just a form of cowardice. I'm not sure the DNA of fruit flies is going to provide a satisfying explanation here, at least not one that can be extrapolated to include people, fascinating though it may be.

Comment: Re:So how does this work? (Score 1) 152

by rsborg (#49674687) Attached to: The Best Way To Protect Real Passwords: Create Fake Ones

Possibly - but then the best way is just to let any password open the vault.

This is highly undesirable. Even knowing which services I find worthy enough to include in my vault is important. If the attacker knows my gmail, linkedin, or more niche account username, and doesn't see it in the vault, then they will get suspicious.

Comment: Sure, defend the asshole (Score 4, Insightful) 776

by rsborg (#49668531) Attached to: Worker Fired For Disabling GPS App That Tracked Her 24 Hours a Day

She probably lied about it.

That's no justification for the employer's action. If your employee doesn't behave properly, you talk with them, maybe put them on performance plan, or maybe terminate their employment.

To talk with another employer to get her fired there is pretty unethical and evidence of douchebaggery.

Comment: Re:Sounds completely reasonable (Score 1) 302

by causality (#49632653) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

Who DOESN'T want minimal government? Even communists and fascists think the policies they support are necessary, and mainstream Republicrats think their policies prevent market failures. I have never met anyone who identified as an "excessarchist", only folks who believe everyone else is being excessive.

Specifically, I am referring to a return to federalism, with the vast majority of citizens' government coming from the state and local levels. You know, the way this system was intended to work.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 302

by causality (#49632541) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

These people randomly speed up and slow down because of changing slope of the road. No one is really paying attention to their speed, and they don't realize that you have to push the pedal a little harder uphill and less downhill to maintain speed.

Most of the time that's correct, but I see it with surprising frequency on level terrain. I think most of them are simply not paying full attention to the road; perhaps they're fiddling with a cell phone.

It's the same reason people sometimes fail to notice that the light has turned green. I mean, why should they pay attention, it's not like they're *driving* or anything...

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 302

by causality (#49632445) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

There is, but we don't consider it when deciding whether to provide medical treatment or not. We punish illegal activity in court not in hospital.

Apparently this is confusing some of you. So I'll explain how it works in the USA.

Hypothetically, let's say you cause a car accident, as in this imaginary accident is 100% your fault. As a result of this accident, another person is injured and requires medical care. Your own car insurance policy has a line item called Bodily Injury Coverage. That coverage would pay for the injured person's medical expenses.

The injured person would not file a claim with their health insurance company (assuming they have one) because you, as the person who caused the accident, are held responsible for any expenses you caused to the injured person.

I was simply asking if car insurance works that way overseas. Instead of a private insurance company that you may or may not have, you have NHS. While the NHS is provided as a public service, the care they provide does have a cost. I wanted to know if NHS bears that cost even when there is an at-fault party who caused the problem, or whether in those specific cases, the at-fault party (via their car insurance liability policy) was expected to cover it.

Comment: Re: Not forced... (Score 1) 302

by causality (#49632393) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

At least in my mind, there's a huge difference between "this person has an infection, or cancer, or heart disease" versus "this person was hurt because a drunk driver ran straight through a stop sign and crashed into them". Does your law make such a distinction?

What coverage differences do you want? Are you suggesting the person hit by a drunk driver should not be covered by insurance in the off-chance they can successfully sue the drunk driver to cover the bill?

You could ask me that, yes. Or you could put just a slight bit of thought into it and consider that there is a more reasonable alternative, which is that the drunk driver's insurance would cover this as part of liability coverage. Perhaps NHS could kick in if that's unavailable?

There's loads of ways this could be done, and since I am not knowledgable about the nuances of laws governing nations across the Atlantic, I ask questions instead of making assumptions. That's all.

Comment: Re:Sounds completely reasonable (Score 2) 302

by causality (#49628731) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

I don't like replying to my own post, but I thought of something that was worth adding. What is happening now to the word "libertarian" is just like what happened to the word "hacker".

If you say "that guy's a hacker" the average person will imagine something nefarious, probably criminal, perhaps something involving identity theft. They aren't likely to picture a hobbyist and technology enthusiast who, by means of skill, manages to get devices (that they legitimately own) to perform creative and useful functions (which harm no one) that were never envisioned by their original makers.

The difference is, "hackers" have gotten so much negative attention in the mass media that the original term is gone and it isn't coming back. The only rational response is to accept this and move on. I don't believe "libertarian" is at that point yet, though it's heading there fast. Is reclaiming a word so important to me? In and of itself, no, not really. What's important to me is for people like you to wake up and realize how easy it is to manipulate you, to prevent you from ever entertaining entire categories of thought and philosophy and thereby to steer your thinking, merely by toying with words. I think that deserves some importance.

Comment: Re:Sounds completely reasonable (Score 4, Interesting) 302

by causality (#49628641) Attached to: Uber Forced Out of Kansas

There aren't any taxi token requirements or anything unreasonable. Can't wait to see what the usual Uber shills have to say about why they can't abide by a couple basic rules.

I've no doubt a few libertarians will chime in how it's intolerable government interference to require car insurance.

I'm a little-'l' libertarian and I think simple, reasonable, easily-understood regulations like this are not only perfectly acceptable, but highly desirable. As a libertarian I want minimal government. A government that does not provide reasonable regulations is less than minimal and therefore a failure. Minimal is "greater than nothing", you see, and something greater than nothing but still less than minimal is ... still a failure. I can't break it down any more simply than that.

I've never actually met or corresponded with an anarcho-capitalist who called themselves a "libertarian" (which is what you and so many others are ignorantly assuming to be representative of libertarian thought), though I have corresponded with multiple anarcho-capitalists who called themselves "anarchists" or "anarcho-capitalists". Their ideas were interesting to be sure, but just like communism, seemed designed for a species other than our own. That's why I don't count myself among them.

The problem here is that your standard "progressive" and "conservative" political schools of thought have millions of members and powerful parties backing them. That means they have great PR. Both would be quite threatened if reasonable libertarian thought really caught on. It's not exactly shocking that reasonable libertarian thought is seldom portrayed, except by individuals like me. Of course it will be distorted, misrepresented, and shown in only its most extreme and unworkable forms, until the average person finds it distasteful like an automatic reflex. Like I said, it's called PR, and it's quite common in politics. It only works because it depends on your ignorance.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.