HD capacity is growing even faster than CPU speed. Throughput is climbing steadily as platter density increases, though not as fast.
Spicedaddy
Platinum Member
- Apr 18, 2002
- 2,305
- 77
- 91
Spicedaddy
Platinum Member
- Apr 18, 2002
- 2,305
- 77
- 91
More seriously, HD seek is a mechanical operation not solid-state so I wouldn't expect it to improve at solid-state rates any time soon.
If they make the shift to 64bit RDRAM than they can support the 1200MHz FSB easy. I cant wait its gonna be so freekin awsome, Yellowstone is suppose to be out by then though and it will probably replace RDRAM as it will start with 10GB/sec bandwidth and be able to scale to over 100GB/sec. Game industry is gonna have trouble keeping up I think, although more AA and better res I guess can gouge at it some more. Hope AMD is up to the task in keeping up, wonder what they have planned.
yhelothar
Lifer
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
0.1nm is pretty much impossible, that's like each transistor is 2 atoms wide...
Well rambus was never useful.. who wanted to pay $500 for rambus at P4's initial launch?
they should have made dual channel DDR or just regular DDR board in the first place..
well Dual channel DDR is probably a lot harder to develop than dual channel rambus, but it's still a better path to go through..
Well rambus was never useful.. who wanted to pay $500 for rambus at P4's initial launch?
they should have made dual channel DDR or just regular DDR board in the first place..
well Dual channel DDR is probably a lot harder to develop than dual channel rambus, but it's still a better path to go through..
Dang....What will we be REALLY using it for? Games better not get realistic (unless its CS 
) because I play games to get away from reality.
HRm, makes the idea of a ps3 seem kinda moot. Then again they did say they were going to try to make it a thousand more times powerful than the ps2
) because I play games to get away from reality.HRm, makes the idea of a ps3 seem kinda moot. Then again they did say they were going to try to make it a thousand more times powerful than the ps2
Originally posted by: magomago
Then again they did say they were going to try to make it a thousand more times powerful than the ps2
LOL...
In all likelyhood, Intel has accounted for what I'm about to say (they're not a billion dollar company because they're a collection of idiots) but I'll say it anyways.
I think a good take on the future of processors is in this article:
Good article on what the future is like
I think the harsh reality is that for the vast, vast majority of all consumers - a 1.5 ghz chip is perhaps massive overkill. For the typical person surfing the internet, checking email, doing word processing, watching DVD's, playing MP3's, and so on, having a 10 ghz chip would be equivalant to owning a desert eagle for hunting spiders in the house. It'd sure be neato, but in the long run a nice twenty two pistol would probably suffice. Further evidence of this is witnessed in the degrading profits of Intel and AMD, and also an industry that squeaks by with a tiny percentage of profit compared to their overall expendature - and it's only going to get worse, since I know people who still use 733 mhz processors and don't mind at all.
Hell, my primary workstation is a p2-400. Why? It does EVERYTHING I need it to (and acts as my primary web server whist doing said tasks), and I see almost no reason to upgrade. Recently I've been looking at upgrading to a Tualatin Celeron processor (at 40 bucks, "my" kind of upgrade) at 1.1ghz, but even that (for me) is like shooting mice with a Desert Eagle. Unlike the past, consumers are not going to pay hard cash to upgrade every eight months to something that does almost nothing that much better. To quote the article, "consumers are waiting five years or even longer between upgrades, rather than buying a new machine every two or three years like they used to."
Granted, some of us have needs that would make a 10 ghz processor quite a lucrative or attractive piece of hardware, but I think the harsh reality is that AMD and Intel are going to focus on reducing their costs more than they'll focus on increasing the speed (although, in the computing world, those things tend to go hand in hand). Of course, they have to be competitive - but gone is the time in which people the typical consumer buys a new computer ever year or two. The proof is in the pudding, and also the 400 mhz chip I use for day to day tasks.
To conclude with yet another excerpt from the article:
"All of this is bad news for Intel because its phenomenal success was built on a simple yet scorchingly effective strategy. Megahertz-hungry users would pay premiums for the latest, fastest chips from Intel. The windfall profits were ploughed back into developing the next generation of faster processors. By introducing newer chips faster than any other rival, Intel was able to maintain a virtual monopoly, resulting in billions in profits and gross margins in excess of 50%. But now the old recipe for growth no longer works.
So what's the way out? Intel needs to shift its all-consuming focus away from raw performance and set its sights on lowering the costs of its chips."
Cheers.
Kidjan
I think a good take on the future of processors is in this article:
Good article on what the future is like
I think the harsh reality is that for the vast, vast majority of all consumers - a 1.5 ghz chip is perhaps massive overkill. For the typical person surfing the internet, checking email, doing word processing, watching DVD's, playing MP3's, and so on, having a 10 ghz chip would be equivalant to owning a desert eagle for hunting spiders in the house. It'd sure be neato, but in the long run a nice twenty two pistol would probably suffice
. Further evidence of this is witnessed in the degrading profits of Intel and AMD, and also an industry that squeaks by with a tiny percentage of profit compared to their overall expendature - and it's only going to get worse, since I know people who still use 733 mhz processors and don't mind at all.Hell, my primary workstation is a p2-400. Why? It does EVERYTHING I need it to (and acts as my primary web server whist doing said tasks), and I see almost no reason to upgrade. Recently I've been looking at upgrading to a Tualatin Celeron processor (at 40 bucks, "my" kind of upgrade) at 1.1ghz, but even that (for me) is like shooting mice with a Desert Eagle. Unlike the past, consumers are not going to pay hard cash to upgrade every eight months to something that does almost nothing that much better. To quote the article, "consumers are waiting five years or even longer between upgrades, rather than buying a new machine every two or three years like they used to."
Granted, some of us have needs that would make a 10 ghz processor quite a lucrative or attractive piece of hardware, but I think the harsh reality is that AMD and Intel are going to focus on reducing their costs more than they'll focus on increasing the speed (although, in the computing world, those things tend to go hand in hand). Of course, they have to be competitive - but gone is the time in which people the typical consumer buys a new computer ever year or two. The proof is in the pudding, and also the 400 mhz chip I use for day to day tasks.
To conclude with yet another excerpt from the article:
"All of this is bad news for Intel because its phenomenal success was built on a simple yet scorchingly effective strategy. Megahertz-hungry users would pay premiums for the latest, fastest chips from Intel. The windfall profits were ploughed back into developing the next generation of faster processors. By introducing newer chips faster than any other rival, Intel was able to maintain a virtual monopoly, resulting in billions in profits and gross margins in excess of 50%. But now the old recipe for growth no longer works.
So what's the way out? Intel needs to shift its all-consuming focus away from raw performance and set its sights on lowering the costs of its chips."
Cheers.
Kidjan
1.2ghz FSB? That's my current CPU clock speed. Haha. What is AMD up to I wonder? Hmmmph. :Q
I bet you could get 2000 fps in quake3 arena with that cpu/fsb, and a video card of equal technology. Kind of makes me wonder if games are going to be real soon?
Ruckas-
I bet you could get 2000 fps in quake3 arena with that cpu/fsb, and a video card of equal technology. Kind of makes me wonder if games are going to be real soon?
Ruckas-
I doubt it. I don't recall XP or W2K having any issues with fast chips, although maybe I just didn't hear about it.
Remember when 640KB of memory would be enough? Remember when we said what would we do with a 1GHz PC? Get where I am going.
For those of you who don't see the need for faster processors, I ask you to have some vision...
Think about having perfect voice recognition... Perfect character and pattern recognition.
Think about having a fully rendered 3D environment to shop in. Places to visit in full 3d. How about a completely 3-dimensional operating system?
I'm not a creative person, and I will admit that I don't have a lot of vision. I am amazed at how so many of the people around me simply have no barriers... They don't constrain themselves with limits.
Sure, there's no use for 2000fps in Q3. But, think bigger!
Think about having perfect voice recognition... Perfect character and pattern recognition.
Think about having a fully rendered 3D environment to shop in. Places to visit in full 3d. How about a completely 3-dimensional operating system?
I'm not a creative person, and I will admit that I don't have a lot of vision. I am amazed at how so many of the people around me simply have no barriers... They don't constrain themselves with limits.
Sure, there's no use for 2000fps in Q3. But, think bigger!
Originally posted by: Wingznut
For those of you who don't see the need for faster processors, I ask you to have some vision...
Think about having perfect voice recognition... Perfect character and pattern recognition.
Think about having a fully rendered 3D environment to shop in. Places to visit in full 3d. How about a completely 3-dimensional operating system?
I'm not a creative person, and I will admit that I don't have a lot of vision. I am amazed at how so many of the people around me simply have no barriers... They don't constrain themselves with limits.
Sure, there's no use for 2000fps in Q3. But, think bigger!
neat ideas, but who is going to deliver the goods? and how much will it cost? there is always neat toys for the fat cats with the cash, but windows xp, and all linux distros all still have huge problems as far as useability. what is being done here? we can add all of the cpu-hogging toys we want, but if you cant figure out how to get the damn thing working, or it crashes, then who cares? i think the whole software industry needs to slow WAY down and start focusing on quality and useability. the fundamental problem is that this software is sold as a product, simply to make profits, and that leads to lots of money being spent on advertising, and buzzword-filled feature sets, but often huge limitations, bugs, gotchas (hello windows xp), etc. the average joe still hates computers.
Originally posted by: Wingznut
For those of you who don't see the need for faster processors, I ask you to have some vision...
Think about having perfect voice recognition... Perfect character and pattern recognition.
Think about having a fully rendered 3D environment to shop in. Places to visit in full 3d. How about a completely 3-dimensional operating system?
I'm not a creative person, and I will admit that I don't have a lot of vision. I am amazed at how so many of the people around me simply have no barriers... They don't constrain themselves with limits.
Sure, there's no use for 2000fps in Q3. But, think bigger!
Bah, girls are for talking to, computers are made to play games and serve porn
And that second one...a little bit too Johnny Mnemonic for my tastes, I like good ole fashion text menus, Shockwave sucks big time, a full 3D environment while surfing would truely suck goatballs.
Of course that's just me, I don't like mice with wheels on them either
all this processing power is useless to 80% of the people. hell, people should be more interested in getting free internet(via wifi) than 10GHz processors that only 5% of users can really use. overcompensation usually means one thing...
Hammer has 800Mhz (well, not really MHz since it uses HyperTransport, but it moves as much data as 800MHz FSB would) FSB, so they aren't exactly sitting still or anything
The real news of the day was the leaked Apple papers that in Q2 2005 they're planning to release a 2ghz chip!!
Originally posted by: Wingznut
For those of you who don't see the need for faster processors, I ask you to have some vision...
Think about having perfect voice recognition... Perfect character and pattern recognition.
Think about having a fully rendered 3D environment to shop in. Places to visit in full 3d. How about a completely 3-dimensional operating system?
I'm not a creative person, and I will admit that I don't have a lot of vision. I am amazed at how so many of the people around me simply have no barriers... They don't constrain themselves with limits.
Sure, there's no use for 2000fps in Q3. But, think bigger!
Bah! That stuff is useless...who needs any of that when you can use all of that power (and then some) to render global illumination in 3ds Max!
JOKING...just joking. I like the idea of perfect voice recognition, but I'd still use all of that power for my 3D animations.
If you guys can't figure out ways to use 10GHz, then I say you're not thinking big enough. Wanna get rid of crappy video compression? Use that 200GB hard drive of yours for something better than puny 1.4GB divx movies...Companies have been touting the voice recognition horn and all its glory since pre-1GHz. In fact I remember an interview with an Intel rep where he tried to sell voice recognition hard as a new grand possibility on their new $1000 1GHz CPU. At 3GHz, voice rec. still hasn't made much of a dent. The "greatness" always seems to be around the corner with the greatness of another pending speed bump. It's like hearing MS go on about the stability and security of their lastest annual OS. "No, we really mean it this time." The sales pitch only works for so long on me. Nowadays, speed bumps are just speed bumps. The speed doesn't seem to provide any new experiences. It just speeds up old ones.
PCs (and their main operating system) have evolved so little so slowly (overall) that it seems almost criminal at this point. ATX is way long in the tooth. We still tolerate bootups. We have 100+ key keyboards that assist in intimidating the remaining population that has not gotten a computer. Shut down by hitting a start button. Copy files to disk by dragging to a trash can. CTRL-ALT-DEL, Open Apple, and basically giant boxes the size of a tire on or under our desks with a UI that's still written by geeks, for geeks.
What was my point again? Oh yeah, go Buccs.
PCs (and their main operating system) have evolved so little so slowly (overall) that it seems almost criminal at this point. ATX is way long in the tooth. We still tolerate bootups. We have 100+ key keyboards that assist in intimidating the remaining population that has not gotten a computer. Shut down by hitting a start button. Copy files to disk by dragging to a trash can. CTRL-ALT-DEL, Open Apple, and basically giant boxes the size of a tire on or under our desks with a UI that's still written by geeks, for geeks.
What was my point again? Oh yeah, go Buccs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter