Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 16:08:40 09/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 2001 at 15:29:31, Roy Eassa wrote: >On September 05, 2001 at 15:26:53, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 05, 2001 at 15:15:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2001 at 13:07:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>They will come, but it is not clear that the 18 month cycle will be preserved >>>>for the forseeable future. It has already started to lengthen... >>> >>>I'm not sure about really recent trends, but for the past decade it had actually >>>shortened from 18 months to 12. >> >>If you are right then it means that the latest computers are 1024 >>times faster than the computers of 10 years ago. >> >>I think about machines that everybody can buy >>and not about supercomputers. >> >>It seems to me to be wrong. >> >>I believe that the 386 is less than 1000 times slower than the latest >>pentiums even if you give them 2 processors(computers with more than >>2 prcessors are almost not used by the public so I do not count them) >> > >In August of 1991, I bought a 486/33, which was about the fastest you could get >at that time. I'd agree that a 1.4 GHz Athlon or a 2.0 GHz Pentium 4 is indeed >LESS than 1000 times as fast as that 1991 system was. The 486 was not superscalar and had slower L1 cache. I would guess that processor-intensive tasks would be about 1000x faster. Note that memory speeds, particularly latency, have not increased anywhere 1000x.
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.