Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/2/05 12:15 AM, Jimsween wrote: Processor development has had no advancements in the past 5 years.

And by no advancements, you mean sweeping advancements. The fact that 64 bit processors have been developed is huge, just by itself, not to mention the speed with which processors become smaller and more powerful.

At 8/2/05 01:25 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Im not exactly familiar with them to much. But, hell, aint computers faster? And what about that stuff that IBM is gonna do with the PS3? Isnt that a new kind of processor?

Well, the game systems only use crappy low end procesors anyways. For example, the XBOX, the fastest system, only has 500mhz. While most desktops have around 2.8GHz (the fastest is 3.8GHz.

So really it won't be hard for them to make a faster processor. Computers aren't really getting any faster, they are getting cheaper.

And there is a lot more things going on than just processors. Another reason nothing may has happened with them is what needs fixing or making better with them, ya know?

Advancement of technology is really only the advancement of the processor. Anything else you can just make bigger and put into it. You could have 8 2GB sticks of ram but anything more than 4GB is overkill for a 3.8GH processor.

The only thing stopping us from artificial intellegence and androids is really the processor.

At 8/2/05 03:01 AM, Gunter45 wrote: And by no advancements, you mean sweeping advancements. The fact that 64 bit processors have been developed is huge, just by itself, not to mention the speed with which processors become smaller and more powerful.

Okay, 64bit I will give you, but the technology for 64bit was there long long ago, it was just never introduced into the market because of its cost and uselessness.

And while getting smaller is technically advancement, it doesn't help us, because we still can't go above 3.8

At 8/2/05 04:15 AM, Jimsween wrote: And while getting smaller is technically advancement, it doesn't help us, because we still can't go above 3.8

Since when is clock speed the determinant of processor power? We could have processors cranking at 10 ghz that would barely be able to do much of anything. Processor clock speeds are increasing, but what's more important is how much information they can crunch in each clock cycle. AMD chips have slower clock speeds than Intel chips, generally speaking, but are equally, if not more powerful, simply because they do more per clock cycle.

At 8/2/05 04:28 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Since when is clock speed the determinant of processor power? We could have processors cranking at 10 ghz that would barely be able to do much of anything. Processor clock speeds are increasing, but what's more important is how much information they can crunch in each clock cycle. AMD chips have slower clock speeds than Intel chips, generally speaking, but are equally, if not more powerful, simply because they do more per clock cycle.

I don't see why thats really relevent, because the difference one can make by fine tuning a processor like AMD does it not stellar. You can make a car a little faster by tuning some of the parts but to really make it faster you have to change the engine.

At 8/1/05 07:56 AM, The_Light wrote: I robot, or Terminator anyone?

Very expensive sex doll anyone?

These robots are considerably amazing. I have seen them on the TV and various newspapers and they are most likely the highest grade with voice recognition. As for jerkiness, I think they are slightly jerking as they don't have the full flexible capabilities as we do and the one I saw was only able to sit and give directions to an entire exhibition.

I think robots in the future will be a very scary thing. Will they emotions and will they reason? I know some have a partial ability to do so as of current, which IS scary.

At 8/2/05 04:44 AM, Jimsween wrote: I don't see why thats really relevent, because the difference one can make by fine tuning a processor like AMD does it not stellar. You can make a car a little faster by tuning some of the parts but to really make it faster you have to change the engine.

I don't think you follow me. Clock speed is a poor method of determining how powerful a processor is. All it shows is how many clock cycles it runs every second. It's easy to make a processor go through a lot of clock cycles quickly if it doesn't have to process much information every time. You can have two processors with identical clock speeds and one of them can be 5 times as powerful as the other because it processes 5 times more data than the other in each clock cycle. That's true even within Intel's chips. A 2.4 GHz Centrino is far more powerful than a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4, I think it's more powerful than a 3.8, but I'm not certain.

At 8/1/05 11:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

Stuff thats actually happened/likely to happen with current technology:

robotics started to take float
not to mention the internet
We have a scramjet that can go 6000 mph.
There is REAL optical camoflauge being tested.
Not to mention stem cell
cloning techniques

Stuff thats theoretica/Mainly theoretical:

We are slowing fazing out the humans from war.
And the solider of the future
Nanotechnology is exploding.

We have it in peices, but very little we can actually use...

A lot of things are still theoretical, the beginning of the universe/the nature of the universe, AI, physics (and the nature thereof). If we contrast it to the last 50 years, science is slowing down in practical. Philosophy is booming.

Science is definately not slowing by any means.

No, science is not slowing- in theorticsone may say its speeding up. But those theories are based on theories, which are based on theories (and so forth). Which means its moving into Philosophy and away from science.

A little too scary, I would never want a robot walking through the house, but thats too good to be true.....wow...

At 8/2/05 04:13 AM, Jimsween wrote: Well, the game systems only use crappy low end procesors anyways. For example, the XBOX, the fastest system, only has 500mhz. While most desktops have around 2.8GHz (the fastest is 3.8GHz.

I was referring to this. I thought it was some new kind of chip technology when I read about but I really dont know.

At 8/2/05 05:46 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I was referring to this. I thought it was some new kind of chip technology when I read about but I really dont know.

Yeah, it's really very fascinating stuff. The cell chips they're using are a whole new way to think about processors.

At 8/2/05 05:46 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I was referring to this. I thought it was some new kind of chip technology when I read about but I really dont know.

Multi-Core (and 64 bit).

If multi-core is the future of our processors, please shoot me. Prepare to pay hundreds more for processors that will be slow unless the program is designed to fit the complicated mess of a way it works, in which case your likely to not even see much of an increase in performance anyway.

I would much rather they take another 5 years to come up with some way to eliminate elictrical interference or some new material that conducts heat differently than have a multi core processor. It's worse than 64bit, because at least with 64bit all you need is one massive overhaul, with mutli core you need another overhaul for every core.

At 8/2/05 06:31 AM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't think you follow me. Clock speed is a poor method of determining how powerful a processor is.

Your misinterpreting things, thats not how it totally works.

I will grant you that AMD processors generally run faster than Pentium (however, this is completely determinant on what your doing), and that clock speed does not measure the speed at which it runs. However, you still cannot exceed a maximum. And you can't fix it by simply increasing the amount of memory done per clock. It's a heat and electrical noise issue.

It's not that AMD processors are better, they are designed for a different task. Any Intel designer could easily make one of thier chips process more information per clock, but doing that has its downsides. If you have shorter bursts of information, an intel is better, but if your running long continuous streams, AMD is better.

Think of it this way, if you are doing anything but gaming, Intel is probably better.