jonas, a video proccessor is drastically different from other forms of computing devices. and it doesnt really move that fast. thats based in large part on teh way the algorhithams work in creating the graphic image. its very specialized.
On 5/17/05, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ron Wormus, > > >A nice overview (~200pages) of the brain and the emerging science > >of consciousness is: > > > "Stairway to the mind" By Alwyn Scott; 1995 Copernicus > > Here is a much more optimistic assessment (from the perspective of > the AI advocate), > where the writer (1996) thinks that one teraflop = one human brain > http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/TheFutureOfComputers--Analog--March1996.htm > > I think that is way too optimistic (and it is in Analog) therefore > I am still googling to see if anyone other than SciAm, with > University credentials, has in the past few years, looked into > this cross-comparison. By the way, the 10^16 would be 10 > petaflops. Sounds kinda like the DAs summation in the Michael > Jackson trial summation. > > Anyway, the problem is equating a flop with a ping. Keith seems to > think that the synapse-ping is more potent, and that the > cross-comparison works out to100 flops/synapse-ping. > > This is a crucial determinant in any cross-comparison. My prior > best guess on this was the reverse and more like to10 > synapse-ping/flop. > > In the mean time, I'm trying Keith's caffeine-fix solution. > > Jones > > -- "Monsieur l'abb�, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
