Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:42:32 06/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2000 at 18:45:06, KarinsDad wrote:
>On June 21, 2000 at 13:59:11, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On June 21, 2000 at 01:04:01, KarinsDad wrote:
>>
>>>On June 20, 2000 at 21:02:15, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>Some will say that in a few years from now L1 caches will be much bigger.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure. I'm not even sure that 64 bits processors will be so common.
>>>>
>>>>I think the actual trend of microprocessors, from now on, will be: 32 bits
>>>>processors consuming less power.
>>>>
>>>>Too PC-centric people will not understand what I mean.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>>Historically, trends have been towards bigger, better, faster, etc. I see no
>>>reason for that to change until designers start getting down to the atomic level
>>>and the brakes are put on for them.
>>>
>>>The future of chess programs will probably be for an artificially intelligent
>>>tutor to analyze your game while it is being played. Additionally, this tutor
>>>will be represented in real time via audio and video (possibly 3D) and be
>>>practically indistinguishable from a human. That will probably require a 256 bit
>>>architecture.
>>>
>>>Sound farfetched?
>>>
>>>So did a lot of things in the past. For those of us who purchased 4K Ram
>>>computers with no hard disks a mere 20+ years ago, 1 Ghz, 512 MB, 30 Gig systems
>>>seem like a dream. But they are reality nonetheless.
>>>
>>>KarinsDad :)
>>
>>
>>I was one of the people to buy a 4K RAM computer without hard disk (it was a
>>TRS-80, 4Kb RAM, no floppy disk) back in 1982.
>>
>>I said "Too PC-centric people will not understand what I mean" in my post, and
>>you probably did not read this.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>I read what you said. I thought I understood it.
>
>But why would you think that Palm Pilots will not one day in the near future (7
>years?) be 1 Ghz 512 MB monsters?
>
>5 Years ago, PC World had an article comparing 100 Mhz systems. This year, it
>had an article comparing 1 Ghz systems. Why would this not also apply to non-PCs
>someday? I agree that reduced power consumption will also continue to be a goal,
>especially for non-PCs (and laptops), but I do not see it surpassing bigger,
>better, faster as a goal.
>
>Game analysis in chess programs today is textual in nature. All computer games
>in the 80s were textual in nature. Today, they are graphical in nature.
>Tomorrow, game analysis in chess programs will be graphical in nature. The day
>after that, game analysis in chess programs on my watch will be graphical in
>nature. To me, it is inevitable. Welcome to the future Mr. Bond.
>
>KarinsDad :)
Yes, more computing power is a general trend.
But it's maybe time to realize that it's rather useless to have so much power in
every PCs when we could make a much better use of much less computing power in
other devices, devices that would be much more usefull for everybody, at a much
cheaper price.
This has already begun. I can't afford a 1GHz processor in my watch, because it
would consume 50W, no battery could power it, and my arm would burn. The same
applies for my cellular phone and other devices.
In the near future, the number of such devices will overweight the number of PCs
sold, by a wide, really wide, margin. So if you want to have a good idea of what
the typical microprocessor will be, don't look up. Look down.
Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.