Talk:Instruction pipelining

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Instruction pipelining article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Negation missing?

While reading the page, I saw this sentence:

It therefore allows faster CPU throughput (the number of instructions that can be executed in a unit of time) than would otherwise be possible at a given clock rate.

Shouldn't that be "wouldn't otherwise be possible"? Seems confusing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V shashenko (talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The sentence is fine, it compares the pipelined (first part of the sentence) and non-pipelined (the second part) instruction throughputs. Hopefully, this will make it more clear. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The need for a negative in constructions like this is a rule of some languages other than English (here I presume Russian). This is also true in Spanish. In English, the hypothetical clause of a comparison is not negated. There is a way to write it not as a comparison: "allows fast CPU throughput...that would not otherwise be possible." But the sentence is fine. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Instruction pipelining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Simultaneous multithreading

Simultaneous multithreading is a special case of Instruction pipelining where the fetch phase looks ahead and injects multiple instructions with non overlapping resource utilization into the decode-execute pipeline when possible. Ethanpet113 (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not simply a special case of instruction pipelining. It isn't just the fetch and decode that are doubled up, many other parts of the pipeline may also have their components doubled up too. Some parts are not doubled, and therefore shared, and some remain single threaded, but not all except the fetch stage.

You can have pipelining with or without SMT and you could have SMT with or without pipelining. You cannot have SMT without the processor being superscalar however.FoxyBuscuits (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are some similarities, those two are quite different techniques. Oppose. --Arny (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Should have it's own article. It's a different technology than basic pipelining. Oranjelo100 (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Order Processor Idle Logic

The line "In contrast, out of order computers usually have large amounts of idle logic at any given instant" is on paper often true. However, it is vague and not useful, as the reader will probably assume that this is synonymous with idle execution logic, which is not entirely true. The whole point of OOO processors is that they will keep the ALUS/Multipliers/Dividers/FPUs fed with data by reordering the instructions. The fact that most OOO processors are also superscalar(and so have a tendency to have idle logic when memory bandwidth lmited) is irrelevant to the instruction reordering itself. 2601:246:5900:E790:0:0:0:F1D (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]