Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
I wonder... Could we call 2005 the year computing power reached sufficiency?
Is the only reason *basically* any of us need more computing power down to inefficient software?
I'm sure some of you will want to draw the line earlier, but I made sure to include fully-programmable GPUs (like the XBox 360's) in my cut-off!
This is before smartphones, but only just!
Correction: Bump to 2006, to edge in SSDs!
Reflecting some more...
I think I'd bump that sufficiency date I suggested by a year (to 2006) to edge in SSD drives! Those do make a real difference! Thus addressing @downbeatdan 's needs!
Then again @jollyrogue likes 2013 Haswell CPUs with 8GB RAM...
So we're still saying computers a decade or two old *should* suffice for home use...
@alcinnz I draw the line at Haswell. ~2013. Aside from AVX, not much has been added to x86 since, and x86 is feature complete at that point.
Yeah, it’s the fault of software. Native applications on Linux happily run in 8GB RAM, but web browsers keep eating cycles and mem.
@alcinnz
Personal, yes. Scientific, no.
@alcinnz 2002 was the year I decided games consoles were good enough. (While playing "Metroid Prime" on the GameCube.)
@alcinnz @rysiek It's always been inefficient software. But greater computing power allows more progress by allowing inefficiencies to enter the human domain - either by employing less intelligent, less skilled workers, or pushing them to do it quicker or to take shortcuts. 
#capitalismruinseverything
@codeofamor Also more features. I can remember my K6-2 with 128MB RAM where I had to edit which programs ran, and now, I can run full index search engine and 100 tabs without breaking a sweat.
@alcinnz A bit later for sound recording. I remember getting my first MacPro in 2008 and could finally have as many tracks, with as many processing plugins as I ever wanted.
@alcinnz @downbeatdan @jollyrogue i'm using an AMD GX-415GA with 8GB RAM, and it's a little bit slow running firefox sometimes or displaying a difficult PDF
otherwise, it's fine
speedwise, i think the GX-415GA is about on a par with the earliest, slowest Core 2 Duos (it has 4 cores, but they're a bit slower than a Core, er, core). so i'd put the marker there. (also, of course, a lot of multicore computers have had to be slowed down artificially because of things like Spectre, Meltdown, etc etc)
@millihertz Looking up the year...
2013! Integrated GPU & video decoder.
So agreeing with @jollyrogue !
@alcinnz @jollyrogue ah, but as i say, it's about the same speed as a Core 2 Duo from 2008
@millihertz @jollyrogue O.K., I am being quite generous by saying 2006... Some important hardware optimizations were very new then!
@alcinnz @jollyrogue yeah 100%. I think I got about 10 years from that machine.
@downbeatdan I still have quite a few 4000 series core boxes around. They work well, and if I didn’t want to consolidate and get better density, I wouldn’t be thinking about an upgrade.
@alcinnz @jollyrogue My last upgrade was crazy going from a full sized macpro to a decade later much more powerful machine as an m1 laptop. Big fan energy, to nothing at all. Size and efficiency are the winning factors now.
@downbeatdan I’ve been having to keep telling myself I don’t need a new MacMini. 
X86 side I’m looking at 125W proc to get the density I’m looking for 
, and I wish they would take efficiency seriously. There is the Ampere Altra stuff which I’m curious about, but I’m going to have to price out a build before making a decision.