New Optical Chip Claims 8 Trillion Operations/sec. 315
Richard Finney writes "Lenslet is announcing
the 'World's First Commercial Optical Processor.'. Reuters has the story here. The Inquirer has a cool graphic here on it. The processor is specified to run at a speed of 8 Tera (8,000 Giga) operations per second, one thousand times faster than any known DSP. When Lenslet releases its Enlight processor in a matter of weeks, a unit using the technology will be 1.7 centimetres high and measure 15 by 15 centimetres."
what a ripoff! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what a ripoff! (Score:5, Insightful)
But think of the SETI@Home score... :) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:what a ripoff! (Score:3, Funny)
Picture (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Picture (Score:5, Informative)
NOT NEW, I saw one in 1985 (Score:3, Informative)
and of course this at instance was not likely to have been the first since this was something that was textbook knowledge at that time--fourier processing of signals could be done optically. his was just a particularly advance version, doing more advanced matrix multiples
Re:NOT NEW, I saw one in 1985 (Score:2)
Re:NOT NEW, I saw one in 1985 (Score:3, Funny)
I ran one in 1967. B-) (Score:3, Interesting)
I was a tech in Emmet Leith's "Radar and Optics" lab at the UofMich and one of the first things I did was run an optical processor using essentially this hack - again to process synthetic aperture radar data. This was in 1967.
Multi-megapixel 2-D FFT plus some geometry correct
I'm not being funny... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm not being funny... (Score:2)
Yes. You can apply the black box theory to optical vs electronic processors. The internals are different, using different logic to form the gates. But the function and operation would be no different.
The only exception would be how you communicate with the processor. If you interact with it optically, you have to alter the rest of the computer. Or you have to have an optical to electronic converter- which will cost you a little speed, but ma
Not only that... (Score:2)
If you thought Broadband was fast, wait until you see the applications this device enables.
Cool Acronym needed (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cool Acronym needed (Score:4, Funny)
Optical
Refractive
Nacell
Why the defense industry concentration? (Score:2)
-N
Re:Why the defense industry concentration? (Score:3, Interesting)
"...said Major-General (Ret.) Isaac Ben- Israel, former head of the R&D Directorate of the Israeli Ministry of Defense."
What else is the former head of the R&D Directorate of the Israeli Ministry of Defense going to say about a new chip like this one?
Re:Why the defense industry concentration? (Score:2)
Because that's the two applications most likely be willing to quickly pay a pretty penny for this development - that might matter to an investor.
Those two applications can put to immediate use very-high-speed logic. Real-time and ver-high-speed filtering of radar (and other) data allows discerning objects that are much smaller, or much farther away, or are much closer to t
FYI (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FYI (Score:5, Funny)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Re:FYI (Score:5, Interesting)
While your statement may indeed be correct, that is not why this chip is faster. The reason is that they are doing analog signal processing using the physics of various optical elements to perform computationally intensive mathematics.
Think of it this way: We can use large, expensive mathematical operations to simulate optical components, which means we can also do the reverse - using optical components to perform the expensive mathematical operations.
I read about this about 2 years ago, and it was really quite fascinating to me. It turns out that with a simple lense, you can compute a fourier transform just by focussing the light (it doesn't focus down to an infinitesimally small point).
I managed to find an article about this, hopefully it should be apparent why this chip doesn't run quake:
Check it out here. [acesinternational.org]
They are certainly not the only people doing this. I've seen plenty of references of this being used in missile guidance systems (turns out a simple fourier transform trick can be used to track objects in a camera). Someone I met while working at the Jet Propulsion Lab was working on this Optical Signal Processors. They prove to be very big in the next 10 years.
Cheers,
Justin
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Re:FYI (Score:5, Informative)
You're talking about old analog electronic computers... yeah those weren't very precise (one of the reasons they are no longer used).
What I'm talking about is a little different. Those electronic ciruits would solve differential equations in the time domain (requiring a bit of time to compute) whereas these optical processors process information in the frequency domain (almost instantly, the bottlneck is as you say how fast they can moduate the light from an electronic signal).
Frequency domain computing is fundamentally different from the time domain computing in that in time domain analog computers, tiny errors accumulate very rapidly. For instance, an operational amplifier that is used to perform an integration will have a small bias current which will slowly charge the integrating capactor(s), requiring the integration to be rezeroed every so often (at least every few seconds, if not many times a second). In frequency domain computation, the error is not accumulative like that. There is error, and it does add up, but its pretty much orthogonal (the error is spread throughout the frequency space, rather than adding up towards the end of the time space in a time domain computer).
A really great article I found (this is the one I originally read back in 2001) is here [eetimes.com]. Anyone interested in the more technical side of the processor should read it. It explains why the processing is so fast (because it's essentially parallel rather than serial, along with being based on photons rather than electrons).
That's where I got most of my information from, along with my optics and mathematical physics classes
Cheers,
Justin
Disclaimer: I'm still a semester away from my BS in physics
Re:FYI (Score:5, Informative)
To do anything at all with light, you need a material in with light beams can interact.
Light will interact in almost any medium. Many kinds of optical gates have already been created.
In this material, the speed at which electrons can change energy levels determine the speed.
I'm not even sure what you are talking about here. There are no signal carrying electrons in an optical fiber - that's the point. And if you meant photons instead of electrons, then the photons aren't changing energy levels. If you look back through your physics book, that would corrospond to changing color, and has nothing to do with optical computing. It is the absence or presence of light that determines the on or off state. Not the voltage, as in a regular processor.
In fact: the rise and fall time are determined by how fast you can (electronically) switch the light source on or off.
If you are using an isolated optical gate with electronic converters surrounding it yes. But that would be senseless and no one does it. Everyhing inside an opticl processor is connected by light signals. Each optical gate interacts with other optical gates optically. And as time goes on, the memory and bus of these systems will also become optical. Already, there are many physical processes that do not need any optical-electronic conversion : especially cpu bound operations that fit into the cache.
I don't beleive you have accurately grasped the concept of optical computing. If you have questions, please ask them. But don't assert your opinion as fact.
Re:FYI (Score:2, Informative)
- Light will interact in almost any medium. Many kinds of optical gates have already been created.
Yes, light will interact; badly. Many kinds of _fully_ optical gates have been prototyped and proposed. Few are available commercially
- There are no signal carrying electrons in an optical fiber.
Duh, no - but weren't we talking about optical gates; two beams interacting? How do they interact then, if not through changing the electron populations in the material ?
- Already, there a
Re:FYI (Score:2)
You mentioned interaction of light and changing energy levels of electrons. I beleive you are refering to, for instance, the time it takes for the electrons to change energy state in lithium niobate when it receives incident photons. First of all, this is not a point of contention between our viewpoints, as my argument concerns the latent time between signal set and acheiving threshold level. I originally mistook what you meant. But there is another option besides gate
Re:FYI (Score:2)
I don't have time or the patience to retype it.
So I'll summarize.
Sorry for sounding rude. I thought you were being rude so I responded in kind.
I think we're talking about different things: My point has to do with the rise and fall times of electronic and photonic signal packets. Since most of the time wasted by a cpu is waiting for signals to reach threshold levels, optical computers can have a much faster clock and not sacrifice stabil
I Found My Lost Post (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry if I came off snide. I didn't mean too. I took your comment to be snide and responded a little harshly. I will be much more civil.
Here's a better and longer explanation of what I said before.
With the present theory of computing (electronic and optical) you have a clock that drives the processor. Actions that take place such as moves, adds, rotates, and multiplies all take place because of an enabling clock pulse. There are bits that will be set on or off that are read and written at the clock pulse. For any digital computer, there must be on and off thresholds - above a certain threshold is on, and below a certain threshold is off - in between is not used and possibly an error.
With your degree, I'm sure you know all this.
Once a bit is set, that is a voltage applied or a light turned on, there is a certain amount of wait time until that signal propogates and can be read. The slope of the voltage vs time plot is rather shallow compared to a light intensity vs time plot. So in order to be reasonably sure that all bits your enabled have reached the threshold will take longer for an electronic signal than for an optical signal. This is why overclockers often increase the voltage on their cpu's, to decrease the time it takes for the signal to reach the threshold value. However, since the intensity of light increases much faster (the packet is tigher) the clock can be set at a MUCH faster rate and still maintain good assurance that all signals have reached their threshold value.
Hopefully this better explains what I said before. You can only imagine if I had tried to type that all into my original post!
Re:FYI (Score:2)
In practice, it is the much slower electronic components that limit the speed of an optical processor. Optical memory and bus would fix much o
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
That is a common misconception, but not true. Both electrical and optical signals travel at the same speed, and both are slowed significantly by their medium. But that has minimal impact on the speed of a cpu. Most of the time wasted by an electronic cpu is wasted waiting for bits to rise and fall.
Article (Score:2, Informative)
Wed October 29, 2003 05:03 AM ET
By Tova Cohen
HERZLIYA, Israel (Reuters) - An Israeli start-up has developed a processor that uses optics instead of silicon, enabling it to compute at the speed of light, the company said.
Lenslet said its processor will enable new capabilities in homeland security and military, multimedia and communications applications.
"Optical processing is a strategic competitive advantage for nations and companies," said Avner Halperin, vice
User availability... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that...
1. its at the WTC
2. they mention defense and homeland security
3. its immensely powerful
...makes me question whether or not this is going to be available to end users.
besides the lack of a huge marketing campaign.
Anyone know anything different?
Re:User availability... (Score:2, Interesting)
So who would buy one? Someone with lots of cash - the DoD.. You wanna sell to the DoD, you have to show how it will fight terrorism.. It's just the way things are selling to the government.
I work writing code for public safety systems - records and dispatching for cops. We did a search and replace on all our marketing lit
Re:User availability... (Score:2)
Re:User availability... (Score:2)
Re:User availability... (Score:2)
The NYC WTC was fraudulently named. Really, the whole construction of those two buildings was borderline illegal. Or at least pinko anti-American...
Gotta Love the spin (Score:5, Insightful)
Its really quite sick and disturbing that the aftermath of 9/11 has degraded to a marketing ploy.
Re:Gotta Love the spin (Score:2)
Well, Lenslet is an Israeli start-up and from what I've heard over the past several years, Israel has had some very strict policies in regards to their airports due to terrorist acts/threats. I really don't think that this has to do with 9/11 explicitly, but the world-wide (or at least Israeli) terrorist threat situation in general.
I think they're
Re:Gotta Love the spin (Score:2)
It's also disturbing that they (and you) don't seem to realise that the electrical impulses in silicon chips also move at the speed of light.
Then again, most everything marketing types write makes me want to spew. I presume if they ever say anything that's not deceptive they get banned from the industry for life or something.
Re:Gotta Love the spin (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gotta Love the spin (Score:2)
dsp vs processor (Score:3, Insightful)
When I read the lead post, I thought it was an actual processor like on a PC motherboard... not a DSP. These aren't the same things are they? The possible applications listed on the press release seem to be entirely communications oriented. (ie. fiber optics)
Now a NAND gate using only optics (not electro-optics) would be fantastic. Maybe using some sort of wave interference to generate the logic table... and as you know you can build all of the other logic gates from a NAND!
Re:dsp vs processor (Score:2, Informative)
This thing probably has some very specialized optical processing elements that can do thousands of "ops" in parallell if your code can utilize it fully.
Remember it's Tera-operations per second, not tera-instructions.
Re:dsp vs processor (Score:2)
That's not entirely accurate... you also need a way to link the logic gates together. And a non-destructive way of sampling the signal. (You can only build every logic gate from an NAND if you can hook the NAND's inputs together to create a NOT, meaning one signal, two sinks)
And if you have an OR gate, the process is MUCH easier...
Heat issues with optical circuits? (Score:2)
Our current use of fiber optics is pretty limited, mostly used for transist of data from point a to point b, in a optic circuit you are going to have billions of particles of light being created and absorbed in a little chip, When ever you change electric energy into light there is loss of energy through heat transfer.
Re:Heat issues with optical circuits? (Score:2)
Heat generation from optical components will not be an issue for the foreseeable future.
Environment (Score:3, Interesting)
Just curious...
DSP then CPU (Score:2)
Optical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Optical (Score:2)
The issue of creation of an "optical transistor" is a solved problem, and has been for quite some time now. The real problem has been making them tiny enough to be able to do something that is actually useful in a manageably (and competitively) sized v
Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
My patent states: It's all there in black and white.
Ha Ha! Not so fast! (Score:2)
My patent states:
...
It's all there in black and white.
Sorry, they use colors in the light, and your patent only covers black and white.
Cool use of blacklights, though
More Info (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly what operations were performed?
The "vector matrix" multiply is attractive to a lot of people.
But I doubt this includes fetching data, storing results in memory. And the operations might be more like one-bit XOR's than general Level 3 BLAS.
Need more information...
Re:More Info (Score:3, Interesting)
The article says "The Ablaze(TM) is the Spatial Light Modulator (SLM) in the optical core of the EnLight256(TM)". Going by the graphic in the Inquirer [theinquirer.net] article, they shine a row of blinking lights through a LCD-like device [lenslet.com] (and some lenses and mirrors I assume) and collect the results in a column of light sensors on the other end.
Each pattern of on/off elements on the LCD-like device gives them a different transformation running at however fast you could emit and sense t
How are they doing it? (Score:2)
Does anyone know how this tech works? Won't it be limited by the electronics it's attached to?
Photonics [psc.edu] promises to give us an all photon path but I don't think anyone's close to making an entire processor with photonic crystals yet.
I'm afraid.... (Score:2)
In all honesty though, I can't imagine a reason anyone would try to boost this thing past it's current potential, considering the applications created thus far for ANYTHING computationally related aren't near this things capacity, I think it's safe to say this thing will hold a landmark speed for years to come without any thought of needing to "jack up the juice"...
GAH! I CAN'T HELP IT!!!
Jus
mirror of that cool pic is here (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.stuwo.net/temp/i_products_enlight.jp
http://www.stuwo.net/temp/i_products_enlight.jpg [stuwo.net]
OMG *SPOOGE* (Score:2)
My mind is alredy overflowing with potential applications. I want to smash one to see how it works. Actually I want to smash them all because I'm afraid of things that I don't understand. Although once I understand it that urge will go away. This is like, God's gift to DSP engineers. It's both exciting and frightening to contemplate it's potential applications.
I guess when and where can I get one and how much will it cost?
Ok 8 teraops but... (Score:2)
Seriously though, that sounds very cool and it is deffinitely the future of computing, but how much heat does it produce? And why do the articles talk about how "Bulky" it is. Sure it's big (although I've seen RAID cards that took up almost an entire full size case), but if there was a 7GHz athlon out that was the size of my head, I'd deffinitely buy it. I don't care that it takes up so much space.
What they didn't tell you... (Score:2)
00: [NOP]
02: [NOP]
04: [NOP]
06: [NOP]
doom3 (Score:2)
Reading the fine print ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, note that it's developed with Matlab [mathworks.com]. Now surely that is the Holy Grail of research, a bitchin' language with an awesome tailored processor. Imagine the logo Matlab [Lenslet Inside].
Re:Reading the fine print ... (Score:2)
I'll ignore the weenies bit. .
but yeah, that's actually the first thing I thought of when I saw it was basically only good for matrix operations. Granted, the precision is really low, but depending on how expensive this thing is it could make really fat neural networks a whole lot cheaper to run.
Multiple Quantum Well Spatial Light Modulator? (Score:2)
There is a diagram [lenslet.com] on lenslet.com that shows how their optical processor works. There are three parts, a row of lasers, a row of photodetectors, and a big grid of Multiple Quantum Well (MQW) Spatial Light Modulator. I assume this grid is where the matrix operations actually take place. I don't even care about the math, I never could understand it. But from a physical point of view, how is this thing constructed? What _IS_ it?
I tried searching
Not a general purpose CPU? (Score:2)
Re:Not a general purpose CPU? (Score:2)
it's not the first one either.
-
Window of opportunity:The Open Source Optical RISC (Score:3, Interesting)
The shift from electronic to optical results in a massive reduction in the time it take to change states, to the point where it possible to, once again, build a CPU from relatively widely spaced modular optical components. You can build a single optical CPU spread over a motherboard or even cabinet sized area and it will still be several magnitude times faster than the fastest silicon/electronic single chip CPU.
No one but the biggest companies are going to have the capital nessary to collect and shrink the resulting designs down into single optical chip hardware and manufacture the result, with a further magnitude increase in performance. As with the existing CPU industry, it is likely that the market could maintain only a few such CPU companies. Opening up the design and development process, as with open source development, would result is a far more rapid pace of development. Relative obsolescence woul;d insure that there would plenty of opertunity for large profits for the large and small manufactures.
sheesh (Score:2)
speculation about how it works... (Score:2)
Vector-matrix multiplication involves summing the products of the vector cells and the matrix column cells to get one output value
The power of the eye (Score:3, Funny)
Optical, derived from the ancient Greek word optikos, literally means "the focal power to perceive fair Helena while she is sunbathing nude in yonder olive grove." That's eye power to you and me, dude.
Some critics will say that a major drawback in these new systems is the need for a mechanized eyedropper next to the chip, keeping the core moist and supple at all times. You don't want this chip going red-eye on you during mission critical tasks.
Still, modders are going to go wild. Within minutes, you can change the color of your CPU's iris using the very same dramatic contact lenses worn by today's biggest infomercial stars.
Unfortunately, if you're into porn, excessive downloading can make your computer go blind. That's why I'll be recommending to my porn-intensive clients that they stay on Wintel systems.
Of course it's fast... it's Non-Von-Neuman (Score:2)
Take a silicon die, build a 16x16 - 16bit (32 bit result) MAC on it, run it at 1 Ghz (all feasible with modern technology), you get 16x16*1Ghz - 256 Billion ops/sec. I'm guessing this could be done for less than a buck/chip in any kind of quantity. Stack up 256 of those..
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is the Future (Score:4, Insightful)
Optical processors have incredible potential. And if you think that's good, just wait. The combo of an optical processor with optical memory is a one-two punch.
But if you want to get the full speed out of your processor and memory, as I recall, all the buses must be optical as well.
Otherwise you're limited by silicon and PCB boards again...
Re:This is the Future (Score:2)
Yes, as soon as you convert from optical to electronic or vise versa, you sacrifice some of the speed you gained. I don't know about the current state of long term optical storage (Optical Hard Drives) but nearly everything else can be made to be optical including the processor, ram, bus, peripheral interface
Re:This is the Future (Score:2)
Re:This is the Future (Score:2)
Re:This is the Future (Score:2, Informative)
Option 1 - Digital Optical - simply measures whether the optical source is on or off
Option 2 - Analog Optical - measures whether the optical source is on or off, and also measures the intensity, say to 50 distinct levels.
Option 3 - Pretty Optical - as well as on, off and intensity, also measures emitted colour as an extra set of data bits.
I've no idea if Option 3 is practical/practicable, but all three sound pretty feasible, to say the l
Re:This is the Future (Score:3, Informative)
Option 2: According to above mentioned definition that's still be digital - as long as the "50 distinct levels" are here. If measures the intensity continuously that'd be analog.
Correct me if I am completely wrong but that's what most of the dictionaries and encyclopedias I used say..
Re:This is the Future (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the Future (Score:3, Informative)
You can build both digital and analog computers from analog components. Indeed, aside from "ideal switches", I'd argue that most circuit components are analog. The poster to which you responded is correct -- a system built around discrete levels selected from a continuous domain is considered digital. A system built around continuous levels is considered analog.
So, if you build a computer around 4-level signaling, it'd still be digital. Each signal corresponds to a "digit," likely valued 0 thru 3. If y
This is the end of strong encryption (Score:2)
Anyone care to speculate on the impending encryption arms race?
Re:This is the end of strong encryption (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming this new optical chip is 1000 time faster than existing chips, that would mean I need to add a whole 10 bits to my key to make a brute force attack as hard as it is now. If you make a chip one million times faster, I'll just add another 10 bits.
Re:This is the Future (Score:4, Interesting)
I appreciate that it's a great demonstration of new technology, but maybe it's a little premature to call this a new commercial chip. It sounds to me like a demonstration of a research project or an exposition of things to come.
It's quite possible that I'm completely ignorant about this, but to whom do they expect to sell the latest and greatest THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE increase in memory bottleneck?
Re:This is the Future (Score:2, Informative)
Stream comes in one end, chip does some magical shit to it, stream comes out the other end..
Like your mp3 player - raw data goes in one end of the DSP, gets decoded into audio, then sent off to the D/A converter for your listening pleasure.
So this can handle larger/faster streams and do more to them.
Memory is irrelevant for this kind of "processor" (Score:5, Interesting)
Think of this more like an FPGA - you have a device that is configured for a specific processing algorithm, and data is fed in at wire rate and processed at wire rate.
An example of how a device like this might be used may be in order:
I'm trying to find a radar pulse buried in the noise coming in from my receiver. I want to know the phase delay of the radar pulse - how long from when I sent it till I got it back.
Now, I know what my radar pulse looks like as it goes out. I know that any reflection is going to consist of versions of that pulse shape, delayed and of varying strengths. So what I do is called a correlation - the easiest way to think of this is to imagine having 2 transparencies, one of my outgoing pulse, and one of the incoming signal. Now, I hold them up to the light, and slide the incoming signal across the reference pulse until things match up - that's the point of maximum correlation, and that give me the delay of the signal.
A real correlation function is a bit more complicated as you have to allow for the signal level to be changed - if I am looking for a signal of N samples in a received data stream of M samples, I have to do M*N multiply and add operations to get my correlation. Now, for a radar signal I might be sampling at over a billion samples a second, and looking for a chirp of a 100 ns would give me over 100 billion MAC operations a second. There are ways to do that with conventional DSPs, but they are a galloping BITCH to do (you basically make a cluster of DSPs, and each DSP takes a part of the signal. Synchronising that is a bitch.)
This device would work by having the shape of the outbound pulse represented in the structure of the device itself, and the MACs are done by taking the incoming data stream and projecting it on the structure - thus you do all your processing in parallel, and at wire speed. You get a pulse out when the incoming signal matched the signal you ar looking for.
Re:This is the Future (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not quite sure you understand what this processor is, and how it works. This is *NOT* like a Pentium with a faster clockspeed. This is a signal processing chip which, rather than really executing code, uses a series of optical filters to do massively expensive mathematical operations. This has the following set of properties:
The original poster was right, this IS the future, at least for now
Cheers,
Justin
Disclaimer: I'm one semester away from my bachelors in Physics
Re:This is the Future (Score:2)
I do understand the distinction between a DSP and CPU though it wasn't very evident in my comment. Even though this is a DSP, I'm left wondering what type of equipment is going to supply this thing with enough data to justify 8 trillion ops per second.
Even if this thing takes 64 inputs at a time, isn't it still capable of taking inputs at 125 GHz? If it takes 256 bits of input we're all the way down to 31 GHz, assuming an ideal situation in real time. I did SCAN
Re:This is the Future (Score:3, Informative)
It mentions this is very useful for "fas
Re:yeah..nice (Score:2)
It would be nice to plop one of those n m computer when it is smaller.....
Yes, because there's no possible way anyone could fit a 6" x 6" x 1" piece of hardware in a desktop machine.
Re:yeah..nice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yeah..nice (Score:2)
Re:yeah..nice (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah, but does it improve my pr0n? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:They talk too much about possible applications. (Score:2)
Re:THE main impact (Score:2)
Re:Um.. (Score:2)
Re:A long time ahead in a galaxy far far beyond (Score:2)
It's not a CPU.