On 2018-07-11, Ron Aaron  wrote:

> On 11/07/2018 19:48, Alex McDonald wrote:
>
>> On 11-Jul-18 16:51, Ron Aaron wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2018 18:01, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/07/2018 14:01, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, performance.
>>>>
>>>> Not really an issue, for, if you're chasing execution time on
>>>> a 1GHz processor, then get yourself a 2GHz processor.
>>>
>>> Wow. Really?
>>>
>>> And what do you do when you run out of GHz to pursue?  Tell your clients
>>> to get multiple boxes?

That's parallelism, innit?

>> We're nearly at the GHz limit for processors; I don't know the exact
>> figures, but anything beyond 5GHz seems to be it. Certainly the power
>> consumption & heat dissapation is a big problem. Intel are shipping
>> multi core monsters, not faster single cores.
>
> Exactly my point.  CPU speeds haven't increased appreciably for a number
> of years.

So now software bloat has nowhere to hide...

--
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05