Prev: hard drive dead?
Next: 32-bit Win 7 driver for a strange Intel S82557 network
From: LSMFT on 9 Mar 2010 17:48
Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed improvement in years
other than more cores and 64 bit. Some 4ghz around,seems like we should
be at 7 or 10 ghz by now.
From: Flasherly on 9 Mar 2010 18:28
On Mar 9, 5:48 pm, LSMFT <bole...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed improvement in years
> other than more cores and 64 bit. Some 4ghz around,seems like we should
> be at 7 or 10 ghz by now.

Gigahertz myth [according to wiki] - is a software benchmark to unify
what a CPU cycle can or not do. [What is done at x4 faster speed is
identical to work engineered to be x4 more efficient at x1/4 the
speed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2008.svg

A chart of transistor model density, which supposes -- will twice the
transistors at a given speed (the chart stops at 2008) be utilized
twice as efficiently at half the time?

Six years ago, a micro computer in a research lab was run at 500Ghz.
Speculation is put forth that "atomic-level" miniaturization will be
the final limit in 20 years.

Some theorists further speculate on "technological singularity" -
progress in technology will be instantaneous.

Then, presumably however sweet that would be, is to see only what you
thought you saw in multifarious advancements. A focal imperative,
possibly, for events to follow, per se as identifiably futuristic
technology, by rapidly succeeding design implementations to some
axiomatic end. Entropy, randomness, and evolution, of course, apart a
conscious event horizon of machinery that doesn't go awry -- thinking
preposterous silly thoughts, such as taking us mere mortals over.
From: TVeblen on 9 Mar 2010 20:11
On 3/9/2010 6:28 PM, Flasherly wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:48 pm, LSMFT<bole...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>> Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed improvement in years
>> other than more cores and 64 bit. Some 4ghz around,seems like we should
>> be at 7 or 10 ghz by now.
>
> Gigahertz myth [according to wiki] - is a software benchmark to unify
> what a CPU cycle can or not do. [What is done at x4 faster speed is
> identical to work engineered to be x4 more efficient at x1/4 the
> speed].
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2008.svg
>
> A chart of transistor model density, which supposes -- will twice the
> transistors at a given speed (the chart stops at 2008) be utilized
> twice as efficiently at half the time?
>
> Six years ago, a micro computer in a research lab was run at 500Ghz.
> Speculation is put forth that "atomic-level" miniaturization will be
> the final limit in 20 years.
>
> Some theorists further speculate on "technological singularity" -
> progress in technology will be instantaneous.
>
> Then, presumably however sweet that would be, is to see only what you
> thought you saw in multifarious advancements. A focal imperative,
> possibly, for events to follow, per se as identifiably futuristic
> technology, by rapidly succeeding design implementations to some
> axiomatic end. Entropy, randomness, and evolution, of course, apart a
> conscious event horizon of machinery that doesn't go awry -- thinking
> preposterous silly thoughts, such as taking us mere mortals over.

You got that from a Borg Cube repair manual!

From: John Doe on 10 Mar 2010 04:43
TVeblen <Killtherobots(a)hal.net> wrote:

> On 3/9/2010 6:28 PM, Flasherly wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 5:48 pm, LSMFT<bole...(a)aol.com> wrote:

>>> Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed
>>> improvement in years other than more cores and 64 bit. Some
>>> 4ghz around,seems like we should be at 7 or 10 ghz by now.
>>
>> Gigahertz myth [according to wiki] - is a software benchmark to
>> unify what a CPU cycle can or not do. [What is done at x4
>> faster speed is identical to work engineered to be x4 more
>> efficient at x1/4 the speed].
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s
>> _Law_-_2008.svg
>>
>> A chart of transistor model density, which supposes -- will
>> twice the transistors at a given speed (the chart stops at
>> 2008) be utilized twice as efficiently at half the time?
>>
>> Six years ago, a micro computer in a research lab was run at
>> 500Ghz. Speculation is put forth that "atomic-level"
>> miniaturization will be the final limit in 20 years.
>>
>> Some theorists further speculate on "technological singularity"
>> - progress in technology will be instantaneous.
>>
>> Then, presumably however sweet that would be, is to see only
>> what you thought you saw in multifarious advancements. A focal
>> imperative, possibly, for events to follow, per se as
>> identifiably futuristic technology, by rapidly succeeding
>> design implementations to some axiomatic end. Entropy,
>> randomness, and evolution, of course, apart a conscious event
>> horizon of machinery that doesn't go awry -- thinking
>> preposterous silly thoughts, such as taking us mere mortals
>> over.
>
> You got that from a Borg Cube repair manual!

He scares the hell out of Borgs...
From: John Doe on 10 Mar 2010 04:45
LSMFT <boleyn7 aol.com> wrote:

> Are we stuck around 3ghz? I haven't seen much speed improvement
> in years other than more cores and 64 bit. Some 4ghz
> around, seems like we should be at 7 or 10 ghz by now.

More cores equals tremendous speed improvements.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: hard drive dead?
Next: 32-bit Win 7 driver for a strange Intel S82557 network