   Todays computer according to Moore
  I've calculated what todays computer would have looked like of Moore's law would have been followed until now. I'm taking a typical computer of 4.5 years ago, and multiplying it by 8, since 4.5 years would multiply everything by 8 according to Moore.4.5 years ago I bought this computer, pretty cheap:CPU: Athlon 1.466GHzRAM: 512MBHD: 40GBGPU: GeForce 3 500Ti with 64 MB DDR RAMNow translate this to today: everything multiplied by 8!CPU: 12 GHz!RAM: 4 GB!HD: 320GBGPU: 512 MBSeems like hard disks and video cards have somewhat followed Moore, but the CPU and RAM totally haven't.But sure computers would have owned if they really were 12GHz and had 4GB RAM now! I miss those times when I read in amazement in gaming magazines that there was a new CPU with that much MHz and that games required so much more RAM! Not to mention that the names of processors were actually changing back then! Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, Athlon... Their names have remained the same for many years now. The last 5 years not much really spectacular things like that have happened though :(   
  Moore's law states that the number of transistors increases.  The relation to speed/storage need not to be linear.  If you add to the fact that GHz != speed, your analysis is even more flawed.   ;Quote:Original post by LodeI've calculated what todays computer would have looked like of Moore's law would have been followed until now. I'm taking a typical computer of 4.5 years ago, and multiplying it by 8, since 4.5 years would multiply everything by 8 according to Moore.4.5 years ago I bought this computer, pretty cheap:CPU: Athlon 1.466GHzRAM: 512MBHD: 40GBGPU: GeForce 3 500Ti with 64 MB DDR RAMNow translate this to today: everything multiplied by 8!CPU: 12 GHz!RAM: 4 GB!HD: 320GBGPU: 512 MBSeems like hard disks and video cards have somewhat followed Moore, but the CPU and RAM totally haven't.But sure computers would have owned if they really were 12GHz and had 4GB RAM now! I miss those times when I read in amazement in gaming magazines that there was a new CPU with that much MHz and that games required so much more RAM! Not to mention that the names of processors were actually changing back then! Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, Athlon... Their names have remained the same for many years now. The last 5 years not much really spectacular things like that have happened though :(moore's law is about number of transistors(or actually elements in general) on chip. Tho that should have worked for RAM atleast, but with RAM there may be limit as the information is storen in capacitors...Actually, i think if you buy ps3 it may be no less computationally powerful than 8 times athlon 1.4ghz .   ;  It is well known that personal computer CPU's have somewhat lagged behind lately. The reason is simply heat dissipation; you just cannot keep raising clock speeds ad infinitum. Hence, multi-core processors, which IMHO are a rather large step forward.FWIW, supercomputers have followed Moore's observation quite nicely.   ;  You seem shocked at the idea of 4gig of ram, yet I had 4gig of ram for ages... (Granted I'm on two now as (a) two sticks got blown and (b) Creative's X-Fi drivers blow and don't like more than 2gig of ram... gg Creative)   ;Quote:Original post by LodeI've calculated what todays computer would have looked like of Moore's law would have been followed until now. I'm taking a typical computer of 4.5 years ago, and multiplying it by 8, since 4.5 years would multiply everything by 8 according to Moore.4.5 years ago I bought this computer, pretty cheap:CPU: Athlon 1.466GHzOk, it's not XP, so I assume we're talking about the Thunderbird core?In that case, here's the correct calculation:Thunderbird: 37 million transistors.Core 2 (Conroe): 291 million transistors.If we use your figure of 4.5 years, meaning a factor 8 increase, we get:37M * 8M = 296MThat's pretty damn close to following Moore's law, isn't it?Conroe is less than 2% smaller than it "should" have been. I think that's an acceptable margin of error, don't you?   ;  Here's a chart that shows the increases in transistors in Intel chips since 1970. Intel has a better one that shows the real increases against moore's predicted increases but I can't find it right now.   ;  The interesting thing will be when Moore's Law runs into the predicted physical brick wall in a few years. Better break out the parallel processing books.   ;  Yeah, I would say that 4GB of RAM isn't all that extreme. I'm stuck with 2GB only because that's the most my mobo can handle (it's a few years old).But yeah, the 12GHz is a little off!   ;  hmm is there any topics NOT related to terrorism?Quote:(from article about moore's law)* Facial recognition that works accurately and instantaneously. Imagine being able to capture faces as people enter an airport and match them in real-time against a database of known terrorists, and having a turnstile lock if there is a match.*imagines this.lovely. per one so called "known terrorist", few trousands people who look much like him (to the point that it isn't possible to tell them apart) gonna get problems each time they fly. Then each time they enter subway. Then each time they enter bus. Then each time they walk around. And perfectly possible, too.Then we'll have system that uses city survelliance cams to track each person, and artificial intelligence to "find terrorists", then i for one welcome our artificial intelligence terror fighting overlords.[btw. it's possible to continue increasing density per chip for a lot of time if several layers is used somehow.]   