FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 26,259 (4.61/day)
- Location
- IA, USA
System Name | BY-2021 |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile) |
Motherboard | MSI B550 Gaming Plus |
Cooling | Scythe Mugen (rev 5) |
Memory | 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB |
Video Card(s) | AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT |
Storage | Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM |
Display(s) | Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI) |
Case | Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay |
Audio Device(s) | Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+ |
Power Supply | Enermax Platimax 850w |
Mouse | Nixeus REVEL-X |
Keyboard | Tesoro Excalibur |
Software | Windows 10 Home 64-bit |
Benchmark Scores | Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare. |
Again, process, clockspeed, and transistors all balance out to get approximately the same exponential growth of performance.
Atom doesn't exactly strive for computing performance--it's performance is measured by power draw. Atom is the exception, not the norm.
Moore's law may, or may not, apply to future classes of processors (like photon). That remains to be seen.
I look at it from the perspective the Pentium III back in 1999-2001. Could I have predicted the existence of Core 2 Quad back then within a tight margin of error? Yes, because of Moore's law. Was it likely? No, because Intel abandoned the P6 architecture for Netburst. The division in Israel revived the P6 architecture for mobile chips because, by comparison, Netburst has high power and thermal design requirements not suitable for a mobile platform. P6 then evolved along the same lines it started out on from Pentium Pro to Pentium III. Pentium M, Core, and Core 2 are therefore, in my eyes, not extraordinary. Anyone working on P6 would eventually reach similar conclusions. The only reason why it was impressive at release is because AMD and Intel were both stuck with old platforms for about two years.
Atom doesn't exactly strive for computing performance--it's performance is measured by power draw. Atom is the exception, not the norm.
Moore's law may, or may not, apply to future classes of processors (like photon). That remains to be seen.
I look at it from the perspective the Pentium III back in 1999-2001. Could I have predicted the existence of Core 2 Quad back then within a tight margin of error? Yes, because of Moore's law. Was it likely? No, because Intel abandoned the P6 architecture for Netburst. The division in Israel revived the P6 architecture for mobile chips because, by comparison, Netburst has high power and thermal design requirements not suitable for a mobile platform. P6 then evolved along the same lines it started out on from Pentium Pro to Pentium III. Pentium M, Core, and Core 2 are therefore, in my eyes, not extraordinary. Anyone working on P6 would eventually reach similar conclusions. The only reason why it was impressive at release is because AMD and Intel were both stuck with old platforms for about two years.
Last edited: