mgrosvenor

These machines are doing some crazy things to get to the result. That said, I can't help but feel like this is the compilers argument all over again. Are the methods used to get to the result good? No. Is the code that it generates good? No. Does it achieve the goal. Yes. Is it likely to get better with time. Also yes. In my use cases, jobs that would have taken weeks to months are being done in minutes to hours. Involving complex testing and reasoning and experimentation. I'm no fanboy, but I can't argue against the speed gains. I'm sure we'll still have artisans who hand weave incredible code. But for me, I'm switching to the weaving loom for speed and efficiency.

You can go quicker with CXL, but not by much.

No they don’t. At least not on the critical path. L1 switch’s at 4ns simply replicate the incoming electrical signal. That’s all they do.

They also do some packet accounting and cute features off the critical path. None of that at 4ns.