That wasn't the case for many posters here. There was serious debate here on what was being measured, the reasons for why it was described as it was, and the circumstances of the discovery.
The DF article was dismissed roundly here. I agree not many here said DF made it up, but there was discussion on various other places that asserted as much, including comments made by ppl who do happen to post here iirc. If nothing else hopefully HotChips compels those of you who assumed the DF article was totally wrong somehow to take the article seriously and give it another look.
Can state what that prediction was again, and what parts of the disclosure at Hot Chips are you counting as verification?
The hypothesis was that the eSRAM's bandwidth was much higher than ppl had presumed and specifically that it was 192GB/s peak. The supporting evidence for this was what DF was told by their dev sources, as well as what I was told which corroborated their info and numbers to a tee. This info leads to the prediction that the bandwidth ranges from the presumed value of 109 GB/s (up from 102 GB/s due for clock boost) up to 204 GB/s (up from 192 GB/s as per clock boost). The HotChips presentation confirmed the prediction was correct. That doesn't speak to the mechanism though.
There are elements of interpretation to any high-level diagram, and that interpretation needs to be stated and defended.
Stated to whom? Defended from whom? The audience wasn't there to learn that double pumping existed. It's only a 30mins talk and covered the entire platform. Nor were they there to bombard MS with questions within the talk's format. Nor has any outlet bothered to ask MS for clarification or even an interview with someone to inquire about the figure.
I am also interested in knowing which parts of your claims in this thread you are saying were proven, as you have made claims to the mechanism that have implications.
Don't confuse claims with speculation. The only claim I have amde as to the specific mechanism is that it pertains to timings. The speculation put forward was about quantum effects that might lead to that, as DF's source told them that MS was suggesting it was something that came about via manufacturing. Hence, the speculation in that context was focused on 'stuff engineers wouldn't expect', which most certainly includes quantum effects usually. Again though, that's open discussion and speculation. Not a claim of fact.
What I was saying was that DF's article, which was utterly dismissed by the majority here and elsewhere, was accurate based on what I had been told ~1 month prior to their article.
Those implications lead to some kind of performance model that can be compared to the admittedly patchy information about the sustained performance of the implementation.
It's not just matching the arithmetic of 7/8, there were other parts of the DF article and others about the performance profile that need to be reconciled.
I agree. But ya gotta start somewhere and the 7/8 cycle concept works with what I was told about timings being important, DF's source's account from MS's info on the subject, and seems natural in light of the notion it was related to a surprise during manufacturing. This is how new understandings of stuff previously taken for granted happens in science. Starting with disparate bits of info and speculating as to how they might be connected in a coherent manner.