0

This is the link to the article. Intel just announced that it is releasing a new 124 bit 16 core 3.6 Ghz processor to market. It's base price is going to be $2200. What do you think guys?

6
Contributors
8
Replies
10
Views
5 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by AndrewDJ
0

The processors for Windows are getting faster and faster but the bottle-neck problem is the disk transfer. So it still takes all day. Will a SSD make a difference?

Edited by jimsing59: n/a

0

Wow, that's amazing!

Even if the headline was true, would the increase in processing power make a perceptible difference?

When we went from 16 MHz to 32 MHz processors, the performance boost was immediately apparent. Tasks that might have taken 1 minute only took half that time. My human brain could register that :-)

At 1.6 GHz that same task would take just 0.6 seconds. Double the processing power again and the difference becomes less perceptible. This is an over simplification, as the CPU is only one of many components that affect performance.

My point is, raw processing power ain't wot is used to be. Chip makers will continue churn out new products and market them by extolling their performance. And we'll continue to buy into this, believing our systems have become obsolete! Why?

Composed on a 25 MHz Intel 386 DX.

Edited by LaxLoafer: n/a

0

I love how even everyone here was rickrolled, no-one even said a thing about it, but kept talking about processors!

The processors for Windows are getting faster and faster but the bottle-neck problem is the disk transfer

Yes, this is the main problem right now. Writing to RAM takes much more time then processing itself.

0

Wow, that's amazing!

Even if the headline was true, would the increase in processing power make a perceptible difference?

When we went from 16 MHz to 32 MHz processors, the performance boost was immediately apparent. Tasks that might have taken 1 minute only took half that time. My human brain could register that :-)

At 1.6 GHz that same task would take just 0.6 seconds. Double the processing power again and the difference becomes less perceptible. This is an over simplification, as the CPU is only one of many components that affect performance.

My point is, raw processing power ain't wot is used to be. Chip makers will continue churn out new products and market them by extolling their performance. And we'll continue to buy into this, believing our systems have become obsolete! Why?

Composed on a 25 MHz Intel 386 DX.

Dear friend, if you mention the 16Mhz to 32 Mhz transition then you must surely remember that the 32 Mhz computers were a huge disaster at the begining. They couldn't even tell the date and time correctly, as the clock was based on the CPU cycles and not the real time clock. Then they created the "Turbo" button, which would lower the CPU speed back to 16 Mhz and we could run the old programs again.
At that time computers industry found out 2 things:
1) It was wrong to base the clock on something that could possibly change - like the CPU speed
2) Speed and capabilities need to be phased in so that software and users can catch up to the changes.

If for example a full quantum computer was commercially available today, no password would be safe. This could easily cause banks or e-commerce to collapse and why not computing itself would be in a heap of trouble.
By progressing to more powerful and faster computers gradually we get progress, at a rate that will not cause these problems, by allowing software, companies and users to adjust to the new environment.

PS: Sorry for the off-topic.

Edited by adam_k: n/a

0

I love how even everyone here was rickrolled, no-one even said a thing about it, but kept talking about processors!

Had anyone actually been lured into clicking on your Rick-rolling link, would they have responded to your post? Try harder next time :p

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.