On Friday 22 September 2006 20:25, David Coombes wrote: > -If instead of paying 600$ for a videocard, you put that money > and mathematical power inside the main cpu, you would not need > a 3D videocard. -IF you code the graphics parts in assembler, > you will be faster than with C++->Win->DirectX->Driver layers. > > > > No way. This is way off the list's topic, but there is no way > at all a standard PC CPU can compete transistor for transistor > in the graphics department of a GPU. Not even close. Not even > in viewing distance. GPU's consits of lots of parallel > processors. With a CPU you could process 1 or 2 pixels at a > time, whereas a GPU can process 24 and upwards at a time. They > are processors designed for fundamentally different workloads. > It's like saying instead of paying $200,000 on a Ferrari, you > spend $200,000 on a JCB, you'll be able to go as fast in the > digger. And as for coding a full 3D graphics engine in > assembler, that's quite-frankly laughable. > > > > Everything in the computer should be include in a single chip > sold for 1000$. > > Memory,CPU,Sound,VideoAcceleration should be in a single chip. > No communication on a mother board except for outside > communication. > > > > That's called a system on a chip (SoC). And for a full-fledged > computer it's impossible at the moment.There are limits in > manufacturing that prevent limitlessly sized processors. > You're restricted to a little over 300 million transistors per > processor at the moment, before yields become ridiculously > low. That'll cover a CPU and GPU from a few years ago in one > processor, excluding everything else (modern GPUs take up that > much room on their own, ignoring the neccesary megabytes of > GDDR). You also have very different technologies for RAM than > making processors. Embedded RAM (eDRAM) is mightily expensive. > > > > I think, from the gist of the converation which I'm not really > following, what you're really after is a clsed-box system. > Unlike a PC that can have any number of different parts from > different suppliers, you want a computer that's fixed hardware > where you don't need lots of drivers etc. to accomodate hugely > varying parts. This is something I want to. Best chance for > this at the moment looks like being the PlayStation 3. It's a > closed box hardware that's supposed to come with Linux > installed. That means as a developer on Linux you could target > PS3 hardware exactly and not care to be portable to other > Linux platforms. That'll elliminate a lot of these supports > and conflict issues that plague PCs. Fingers crossed it works > and RealSoft comes in a PS3 Linux optimized form! > > > > David Coombes > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Cell processor system might just be the thing that finally gets everyone off the X86 architecture... ...anyone remember the INMOS Transputer? LeeE
