Global recession over the end of Moore's Law - page 3
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
In the late 60s I translated an article for TIIER magazine about the super computer Illiot-4: 256 quadrants, each quadrant of 256 processors, each with its own memory. At that time this project had not been fully implemented. I don't know if it had been implemented at all.
I started running around trying to find out what tasks this computer could do apart from the one mentioned in the article - weather forecasting.
I found it in the Institute of Control Problems of the USSR Academy of Sciences - a classmate of mine did his internship there. The problem is as follows. A dome standing with its edge on the foundation. The forces on the foundation are known. There will be forces at any point of the dome. It is a diphur system. It quickly became clear that this super computer could not solve this problem of practical value in a reasonable time.
At the institute in question, solving this problem was a chore. The solution time was a few seconds. The computer was analogue.
PS.
When I was a student, there was a digital computer course and an analogue computer course. Comparing these two qualitatively different computing devices in terms of speed is impossible in principle. In analogue computer, the time to solve a problem of any computational complexity is the time of electrical transient. But such a computer is specialized unlike a digital one.
PSPC.
Moore is just advertising his brainchild and does not understand the progress of science at all, must be.
Well, yeah found something to compare it to, funny story
Why is it funny?
1. Digital computers are not the world's first choice. Analog computers are radically different from digital ones in their speed.
2) The fact that microprocessors, which are widely used in consumer goods, will not be developed does not come out of it. The possibility of fooling people with "technical progress" in the form of mythical gigahertz will simply be reduced.
PS.
Specifically.
BESM - 4. 20k floating point operations in 45 digits. Today, I have a 3.6 gigahertz computer.
Question: how much faster is my computer compared to BESM-4?
nothing is everlasting, life is temporary - we will all die someday
Why is it funny?
1. Digital computers are not the world's first choice. Analog computers are radically different from digital ones in their speed.
2) The fact that microprocessors, which are widely used in consumer goods, will not be developed does not come out of it. The possibility of fooling people with "technical progress" in the form of mythical gigahertz will simply be reduced.
PS.
Specifically.
BESM - 4. 20k floating point operations in 45 digits. Today, I have a 3.6 gigahertz computer.
Question: how much faster is my computer compared to BESM 4?
A lot, do you understand the difference between the digital wave and the so-called analogue wave?
Why understand? After all, we are discussing principles.
And I am writing about analogue principles, which 50 years ago solved computationally intensive problems much faster than modern GHz. And they solved them so much faster, that there is no need to increase the speed.
And my example is not as simple as it may seem.
There is such a field of technology as 'automatic regulation'. The introduction of digital technology in it was very difficult because of the fundamental limitations of the speed of these digital technologies.
So, I think the end of the world due to the stalemate in processors has been postponed for now.
A lot, do you understand the difference between a digital wave and a so-called analogue wave?
So still, what's up with comparing the performance of the dinosaur to the alleged "rocket"?
read
http://thedifference.ru/chem-otlichayutsya-analogovyj-signal-i-cifrovoj-signal/
read
http://thedifference.ru/chem-otlichayutsya-analogovyj-signal-i-cifrovoj-signal/
You and I are talking about different things.
Forget it.