NSA force CPU makers to limit CPU'S?

It just seems to me that multi-core processors are a waste, when that space could be better used by a single bigger processor core.

Anyone that's ever designed a circuit realizes that redundancy is redundant.  4 processors !/= 4x the power.  Fractional improvements are fractional of what normal should be.

>>1
!/=
What has science done?

NSA? What the fuck for? Actually, never mind. Go troll /comp/ instead.

Go back to masturbating to the P4.

Because google can run on a single processor.
Yeah, parallel programming is useless. NSA dude. evil.
They backdoor encryption algorithms and limit your processor power.

>>5

Uh, yeah.  You do realize that "faster" is not the same as powerful, right?  I'm not talking about the fastest search engine known to man.

The same version of Maya that came out 5 years ago only runs twice as fast on the best machine that money can buy as it does on my piece of shit with a gig of memory.  Do you comprehend what I'm saying? My computer is 5 years old. What, are you impaired or something?  The technology FUCKING SUCKS!  There's been no improvements.  Did you see Beowulf?  that shit had the same production time and quality as "Final Fantasy: The spirits within". 

How can you say that's good, fagabilly?

Yay! Computers have stopped having significant improvements! 

Your head, your rectum. Remove one from the other.

>>6
Shut your whore mouth, faggot.
I'm a fucking computer scientist, what the FUCK do you know?
Google uses ingenius algorithms, and powerful hardware.
The concept of time exists in algorithms (and partially in hardware; depending on the vendor there might be an explanation of a CPU cycle, bitrate, et al in the technical manual)
Now, what the FUCK do you know about von Neumann archs and parallelism? (MIMD, sounds familiar?)

>>7

The difference between what you're saying and the truth is that you're making excuses for an industry that that has been prevented from making considerable improvements by it's government because they can't beat anything above 90-bit encryption.  All your "computer science" doesn't mean shit compared to what a free market is supposed to be. Obey more. The difference between what you're saying and reality is in application. Remember my comparison where the same version of Maya is run on my 5 year old piece of shit, and the exact same software and scene is made on the best, most modern, personal computer that money can buy, and the improvement is pitiful?

THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW, YOU MASSIVE FLOATING PILE OF SUCK-UP.

Multiprocessors are overrated for very nearly all consumer purposes. They're just cheaper to make, so marketing.

>>9
Not to mention those multi processors have to all use the same memory.  Yeah, multi-processors are massive amounts of FAIL.

Some tasks are inherently amenable to parallel processing.  The GPU is a lot slower than the CPU, but because of how parallel it is, it is a lot better at rendering graphics.

>>7
Hey, can I toss something in real quick?

I'm sure your great at your job, and that you worked hard to get your degree.

But you sound like a huge dick, so I can see why people don't want to listen to you.

>>8

The difference between what you're saying and the truth is that you're making excuses for an industry that that has been prevented from making considerable improvements by it's government because they can't beat anything above 90-bit encryption.
What the fuck are you talking about?

Remember my comparison where the same version of Maya is run on my 5 year old piece of shit, and the exact same software and scene is made on the best, most modern, personal computer that money can buy, and the improvement is pitiful?
Sigh..
Now I'll take a moment here and question myself
"How do you explain computers & programming to someone who has NO FUCKING IDEA abou the subject?"
You can't. I'll attempt, knowing from before my attempt will fall on deaf ears.

For starters, let's assume the program is a spell, and that the computer is a wizard "casting" the "spell".
Does the spell get more powerful if the wizard is more experienced?
No, ofcourse, the better wizard can cast it easier, but its strength is the same.
There are also some wirardz who don't have enough mana to cast the spell.

Holy fuck, I did a good job without getting into technical minutiae. Maybe you'll actually get it.

>>10
Do they?
That's all up to the kernel and the implementation. You have no fucking clue.

>>12
Hey, can I toss something in real quick?
Well, can you?
I'm sure your great at your job, and that you worked hard to get your degree.
False assumptions, I don't work, I research, moreover it was really easy to get my PhD.
Also, you're*.
But you sound like a huge dick,
I AM.
so I can see why people don't want to listen to you.
Frankly I don't care.
If they were any wiser they'd take a moment to consider my words.

| | I'm sure your great at your job, and that you worked hard to get your degree.
| False assumptions, I don't work, I research, moreover it was really easy to get my PhD.
| Also, you're*.

You highlighted the wrong one, you ass.

>>13
NOT ENOUGH MANA.
I CAN'T CAST THAT YET.

But seriously, good description there for the novices.

>>15
>>13
Don't spells increase in power with level? I liked your metaphor, but that seems like something you might have overlooked.

>>16
No, no. You're thinking, like, going from Magic Missile to Melf's Acid Arrow. That's just like upgrading. Takes more mana, but it works better.

>>8
AES 128?

lol.

but can Maya utilize parallel cores?

>>6
So, just to clarify:
(a) The version of Maya which was out 5 years ago doesn't support multithreading
or
(b) You're a fucking idiot and you're talking out your ass.

Thanks for playing.

PS: 90 bit, christ, I lol'd so hard.

Just a week ago I have installed POVRay and wanted to check how much faster it will run on all 4 cores compared to single-threaded on my new CPU. It turned out POVRay still doesn't support multithreading. Bummer.

>>21
POVRay 3.7 supports multithreading.

DNA, Nanotubes, and Quantum computers mother fuckers. Do you know it?

Stop bitching about the limitations of silicon. The world will be changing faster than you can handle.

>>23
There is no facepalm large enough to encompass your fail.

I have a Dell computer.

>>23
except quantum computers are useless to the home user. We dont need to do quantum physics calculations. FAIL Nanotubes are irrelevent to this conversation as of now, why would you use a tube to conduct electricity? hollow = smaller volume of metal = gets hotter = BAD

>>26
>quantum computers
>We dont need to do quantum physics calculations.

ಠ_ಠ

>>26
And I thought the post you're replying to was full of fail. You've managed to surpass it.

>>23

I live on a farm.  The world is pretty much static to me.

Oh goody, this ought to be fun....

why dont' they just make the circut chip 4x as big

We need to increase the data width, not other improvements. The first company that develops a 128bit cpu with a 256bit bus owns the world for the next 10 years.

>>24
stfu michio kakus says nano computer
and since you are not michio kaku you can suck my dick

>>33
Nano computer?  Is that anything like that molecule shaped like a car(sort of) that runs on radio waves?  Just to let you know, nobody has any plans to make any nano-computers anytime within the next 2 decades.

Cocksmoker.

>>34
i smock your cock

>>32
Your 128 bit CPU can calculate floating point numbers with higher precision than my 32 bit CPU, but you still cannot calculate 1+1 any faster than my 32 bit CPU.  What matters now is speed, not precision.  Unless you can somehow cram 2 64 bit instructions into a single 128 bit instruction and execute it in one go, your 128 bit CPU is not noticeably faster.  Even if you do that, you'd have to drastically change computer architecture.

>>33
Who the hell is Michio Kaku?  I think I've heard the name before.

>>36
Nevermind that last comment to >>33.

>>36
Yeah. because computers -only- need to handle 1+1.  Shit like the  massive numbers involved 3d rendering will never be used by anyone.  Fuckface.

Bakka bakka bakka!  The reason we need architecture improvements is because even at the speed of light, a 32 bit processor with a 64 bit bus is -not- enough.

>>38
If I hear you insulting 4tran again, I'm going to gouge out your spleen with the base of an anvil, and then strip your body of enough tendons to make a few Genghis-era Asiatic shortbows.