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.

>>38
With 32 bit float, you can get up to ~ +- 3*10³⁸
With 64 bit float, you can get up to ~ +- 2*10³⁰⁸

Even if you convince me that 32 bit floats are insufficient, you can't convince me that 64 bit is insufficient; this latter range of numbers far exceeds the estimated # of particles in the universe.

Besides, 10³⁸ + 10³⁸ takes the same amount of time as 1 + 1: 1 clock cycle.

Good architectural design like efficient pipelining can dramatically speed up computation, but having extra bits won't.

The reason Crysis is slow on your shitty computer is because it's not fast enough, not because it's only 32/64 bit.  If it's a lack of precision, then numerical errors will corrupt the game's physics in no time.

>>40
Note to self: don't get RedCream angry.

Most of the videogames I require to be made depend on calculating subatomic particles to create entire universes, ecosystems, and biological organisms that make up societies of people who stare at you and say "Outlander..."

>>40
>>41
Retards.

>>41
meh, 2 bits are fine too, right? If we speed up the 2 bit processor, we should get it to run as good as a 64 bit, just by making it faster.  We could make some awesome 2 bit computers these days.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

if you can calculate 80,000 raytraces in the time it takes to calculate 1+1, that is no improvement.  Come on, what's that good for? 

>>44
So just to clarify, you genuinely think that lack of precision, rather than speed, is a serious issue in most computing? If only we had 128bit floating point operations done in one clock cycle, we'd have realtime raytracing or something? Of course a 2 bit processor would be awful: because 2 bits is clearly not sufficiently precise for any real number calculations. 64 bits is plenty for all non-scientific purposes. Hell, 32 bits is most likely enough for all non-scientific purposes. You have a 10-year-old's understanding of this matter if you truly believe that 128-bit or 256-bit or 1024-bit computers are going to be radically faster than 32- or 64-bit computers are.

>>45
And how is this supposed 128bit CPU going to compute 80,000 "raytraces" (I assume you mean ray-triangle intersections; the definition of a "raytrace" would clearly depend on what you are ray tracing) in the same time it takes to calculate 1+1? At best a 128-bit CPU could perform operations on 4-vectors of 32 bit floating point numbers (16 bits is generally considered insufficient for graphics purposes nowadays); this would hypothetically offer a 4x speed increase. However, a 4 core 32 bit CPU would offer that same 4x speed increase and be more flexible at the same time.

>>42
If that's the case (calculating subatomic particles to create entire universes), then you're already screwed.  Lrn 2 chaos theory.  For very large systems, small errors tend to grow exponentially with time (primary reason N body problem is intractable).  In other words, even 10000 bits won't last you more than a few yrs, assuming of course, that you can even simulate a yr before the end of the real world.

>>45
Good for 60+ fps on Crysis with max quality?

>>46
Thx.

>>46

Derp da derp.  Because lots of calculations cans be handled by 2bits operating at the speed of light.  Derp, derp, derp...

Den A 36-2bit multi-core processor on a cpu shoulds wurk just as well.

>>46

Basically, you just said why the other guy was right, and you are wrong.

Soon we will have quantum CPUs and solid state drives made of crystal that can store terabytes in a single beam of light.  I read WiReD so it has to be true.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

>>48
>>49
First off, I like how you always make two posts in rapid succession in an attempt to make it look like you're two people. You actually had me going for a minute there. Anyways, your entire understanding of CPU architecture is apparently based on commercials for the Nintendo 64. I can't come up with any other reason for how you could possibly be this stupid. Further, try reading my fucking post; I specifically said a 2 bit processor would NOT be sufficient due to the obvious lack of precision. 32 bit and 64 bit processors do not suffer from a lack of precision in virtually any non-scientific applications. 128+ bit processors bring virtually nothing to the table except the possibility of use as vector processors, which tends to be usable only in niche applications, unlike other improvements (more cores). Indeed, most of the driving cause behind the movement to 64 bit was memory addressing, not precision of floating point numbers.

>>52
I make 2 posts because I can't delete the first one, shitface.

Besides, it should be obvious from the language style.  I've seen your posts all over the place, and I never assumed you were 2 people.

and finally, if you can't figure out how to create a bit of machine code that allows a 2 bit processor to act like a 64 bit, irregardless of how long it takes for the 2 bit processor to go through the instructions, that's on you.

as far as that goes, machine code is like clockwork, and programs simply count fractions.  The trick is to get the clockwork to perform usable or fun functions while it progresses.  You're boring.

>>53
>>54
>>55
>>56
Christ, try and fucking think about your post before making it. Also, you see my posts "all over the place"? I've made a grand total of maybe 20 posts on /sci/ and none on the other textboards, and none of them were double (or quadruple) posts.

Yes, of course you can emulate a 32 bit processor - or 64 bit processor - with a 2 bit processor; however it comes at a massive loss of performance. However, this DOES NOT WORK IN REVERSE. Just because a 32 bit processor is considerably slower doing 64 bit computations does not mean that a 128 bit processor will be considerably faster doing 64 bit computations. At BEST you can double performance by having it function as a vector processor, but this is very limiting compared to having two 64 bit cores.

Also, with regards to the last of your four post monstrosity - jesus christ I lol'd hard. Did you learn about computer science from a Neal Stephenson novel?

Finally, here's a simple question: How is a 128 bit CPU going to significantly improve performance (not precision; PERFORMANCE) over a 64 bit CPU, other than in the very limited fashion which I have already described? Until you can answer this clearly and logically (ie, not your usual "DUH! MORE BITS HUR HUR"), I will not reply again.

>>57
I'm >>5,7,13
Don't listen to that faggot, he's either a troll or a moron.

>>58
ah, goddamn it. I'll fess up. I started this thread to troll.