Nice to hear you’re still talking to them!
The lectures were truly inspiring and made tons of sense, while I was listening to them.
Still over the years I’ve forgotten so much, I couldn’t explain how the Belt works if I was asked me today 🙁
What I *do* remember is an order of magnitude better general performance from the same transistor budget.
But when I look at an Apple M1 vs. a Jetson Nano, or a AMD Ryzen 5800U vs. an AMD Bobcat, that’s also an order of magnitude in a decade, redoing architectures on a very conventional ISA.
It reminds me of i860 vs. i386 days when a novel “Cray-on-a-chip” ISA could deliver an order of magnitude of performance per clock, but never survived more than half an architecture refresh, while x86 still lives.
So I wonder how meaningful do “tin” to “gold” performance targets remain a decade after starting, when even x86 and ARM need to prove that they can continue to scale performance at static energy cost?
In theory a Belt ISA implementation should always remain ahead, but only if it could mobilise simlar budgets to keep scaling the implementation.
I am growing a little worried, that perhaps the Belt will wind up better than a comparable RISC-V at the same transistor budget, but that it won’t matter because it’s travelled downward to the embedded “sleep mostly” range where the cost of an extra ISA is much higher than the price for the extra die area.
You’d need to hit laptop or smartphone targets with significantly better performance and/or energy efficiency ratios to get enough sales traction to create an eco-system, so where would “tin” to “gold” fit today, when you imagined them a decade ago?
How would you grow to 256 Platinum cores for a server variant and can an ISA survive without planning for that league?