Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (37800)	10/4/2000 12:01:48 PM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

OT - Keep in mind that the faster the CPU's get, the higher proportion of the time they stand idle waiting for us (humans) to think ... CPU speed is more of a perception issue for business/personal computers than a bottleneck. We perceive them to be "slow" because of the (comparatively rare) times we spend waiting for them, not the times they wait for us. I see the demand for CPU cycles as software driven (killer apps) rather than a pure hardware problem; in that sense, I think the hardware capability in several areas (CPU and Storage) has temporarily exceeded the software demands. (Microsoft can fix that with bloatware ... they have before ... <g>) Some computationally intensive problems (CFD, FEA/FDA, 3-D rendering, etc.) can benefit from more constant CPU cycles - but also from more (and faster) RAM. The front-side bus speed becomes more critical than the internal CPU speed for these applications. Analogy: It does you little good to turbocharge your car engine if the transmission can only handle a fraction of the power anyway. Overclocking a CPU gives these kinds of diminishing returns. - Mitch