Re: Bottlenecks
- From: Jure Sah <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:23:57 +0200
Phil_12345@xxxxxxxxxxx pravi:
And I doubt that with those few billions of $$$, you'd be able to pull
out of the sky better technologies than are currently developed by the
companies.
Where, from outer space (alien technologies). How long you're willing
to wait for better technologies. Current computer technologies are
mostly improvement from previous design.
Money and time are two different things. I said if you had all the money in the world, not if you had all the time in the world.
I took lessons in digital circuits and believe me, getting together a
CPU with 64 bits of functions (18446744073709551616) and put it all in
one optimized chip is not easy.
Like the OP; money is no object.
See above.
2) For a few billions $$$; I'm sure Asus/Abit or whoever would create aYou've missed PCI64, it has a higher persistent transfer rate than
nice MB that would work with the above CPU plus all PCI-Exp/PCI/MEM
slot and all the bell and stuff you ever want.
PCI-Express. But why limit oneself to such standards, if you created
your own hardware, you could plug it directly into the motherboard with
no slot interface and pick a communication frequency yourself.
And yet, there is always the question, if it's so easy, why don't they
do it?
Will the average consummer willing to pay high-price for it ??? Is
there a standard for it? NO and NO.
Yes and Yes. See PowerPC.
But if you have THAT kind of money and willing to pay; then someone
would willing to customize it for you.
But developing entirely new technologies will not only cost you money, there is always a question if it at all can be done and if yes, it might take a very long time. You don't have that kind of time, you only got the money.
Oh please, don't talk like you were born yesterday. An ISA Creative
sound blaster can be connected to as many other copies of the card as
you can fit to a bus.
The problem of course, is having a CPU with as much communication
bandwidth (for all those graphic cards). There are some physical limits
to how fast you can relay a signal without degrading it and now amount
of money can prevent them.
SLI is old technologies (3dfx; even Quantium has 4 or more voodoo1 SLI
on a single video card). Please show me a video vendor that has more
than 2 video cards SLI right now. If it's sooo yesterday then how
come hardly any improvement now a day.
SLI is nothing but a term for "Scalable Link Interface" that nVidia uses. I have here a Daimond 64 ISA-VLB that has a digital link interface that can be used to bridge as many cards as you wish (there is an in-plug and an out-plug). The link connects the card's memory and rendering capability. Neither of which is particularly impressive.
Beside there is no particular reason to make the link digital, you can use analogue VGA linkage to the same effect. The Voodoo 2 3Dfx graphics accelerator is a standalone card that is only packed with memory and independent 3D rendering chips (4 per card I think), it has an in-plug and an out-plug for analog VGA, the 3D data is simply divited amongst the chips and overlayed and thus you can chain up as many Voodoo 2s as you have. I have tried 3 of them and it worked just fine. Voila.
And why is this something new now all of the sudden? Because the company you're buying your graphic cards from is trying to tell you it came up with something new and you've fallen for it.
The question is it practical? NOThen obviously, you have not built the ultimate computer!
and probably no one ever crazy enough to do it (even if money is noWell if all of those people at Intel and AMD were thinking that way,
question).
If I have that kind of money; I wouldn't spend it on PC at all; I
would rather travell around the world in my jet or yatch and play with
women instead of sitting infront of the PC.
we'd all still be using 8086s. For about the same amount of money as you
write about above, I might add.
Well, the OP was hypothetically (sp) speaking "if you have all the
money in the world" -- This is not true for people like me and you.
Therefore; my response was also hypothethically (sp) and not up-to PC
specs or in depth of how things work. If the OP requires more
meaningful response then perhaps he/she should take this question to
MIT or INTEL or MS or .... to get a realistic answer.
I am the OP and I have considered taking it to INTEL or AMD, but to tell the truth all these companies are capable of saying is promoting their own findings while never really having time to consider things a bit more universally.
Beside, every computer science college in this world teaches people all you need to know about hardware and software design that you need to think this whole thing trough and give an intelligent answer. The only reason why I don't do this myself is because I find doing this trough discussion much less stressing.
Unfortunately, as you have come to conclude, I find it hard to find other people who are willing to give these subjects as much thought as I do. People prefer to believe hearsay over factually determining what hardware performs better.
--
Primary function: Coprocessor
Secondary function: Cluster commander
http://www.thought-beacon.net
Pay once per lifetime webhosting:
http://farcomm-it.com/?ref=jsah
We are the paragon of humanity. You may worship us. From afar.
01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100
01000010 01000001 01010011 01001001 01000011
.
- References:
- Bottlenecks
- From: Jure Sah
- Re: Bottlenecks
- From: Phil_12345
- Re: Bottlenecks
- From: Jure Sah
- Re: Bottlenecks
- From: Phil_12345
- Bottlenecks
- Prev by Date: Re: Bottlenecks
- Next by Date: Re: mobo's fsb, cpu speed and memory
- Previous by thread: Re: Bottlenecks
- Next by thread: Re: Bottlenecks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading