Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

#61

Post by solomatov »

invisiblerobot wrote: post #57
tiernano wrote: post #2

java might run at a decent speed... Might, but probably won't (jk, sorry, I couldn't help myself...) [edit Grammarly decided to remove some text when fixing spelling...]

Java runs at 90% the speed of C for most common benchmarks. It uses 50x the RAM to do so. But you're dead wrong to think java is slow. The only reason physics game engines are written in C++ is because physics game engines are written in C++.

>Java runs at 90% the speed of C for most common benchmarks.

It's not 90%, more of several times slower: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

>The only reason physics game engines are written in C++ is because physics game engines are written in C++.

They are written in C++ because of latency requirements which are nearly impossible in GCed language.

Re: Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

#63

Post by robertlagrant »

invisiblerobot wrote: post #56
robertlagrant wrote: post #17

Be able to run Emacs as fast as I can run Vim?

Consider you can easily emulate Vim inside Emacs but NOT the inverse and you'll understand what those extra cycles do.

For sure Emacs is a great operating system. If only it came with a decent text editor!

Re: Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

#65

Post by kaba0 »

naikrovek wrote: post #26
kramerger wrote: post #6

Windows update in the background would take 3 hours invested of 4. Average nodejs manifest file would contain x12000 more dependencies. Also, we would see a ton more AI being done on the local CPU. Anything from genuine OS improvements to super realistic cat filters on teams/zoom. And finally, I think people would need to figure out storage and network bottlenecks because there is only so much you can do with compute…

we have always been memory-bound, in one way or another, even today. the difference in performance between an application using RAM with random access patterns and an application using RAM sequentially is far more than you are expecting it to be if you haven’t actually measured it. an order of magnitude or more for sequential stuff over random access. having your data already in the L1 cache before you need it is wor…

Indeed, but in the case of your average application it is not only lack of will/expertise to optimize, but also simply that the program domain has a much more random memory allocation pattern. Most programs are not operating in a single hot loop on terabytes of data.

Re: Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

#66

Post by 2rsf »

Jaydenaus wrote: post #5

First thing that comes to mind is using your mobile device as your main workstation would become a lot more realistic.

In a lot of aspects the limiting factor of using mobiles as workstations is the software and OS, you can add a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse then cast it to a screen but all you will get is a bigger phone and not a workstation. Mobile CPUs are not that bad nowadays.

Re: Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

#67

Post by muzani »

alrlroipsp wrote: post #44
Jaydenaus wrote: post #5

First thing that comes to mind is using your mobile device as your main workstation would become a lot more realistic.

My main workstation up until 2005 or something was probably less computing power than the smartphone you use today.

8 core 2.8 Ghz, 11 GB RAM, 256 GB storage, liquid cooling, camera zooms at the level of a toy microscope. This is more powerful than some gaming PCs just a while ago.

It runs fine, but any less gets laggy, so I suspect apps like Facebook and TikTok are just going to continue to swallow up any more power.

Re: Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

#68

Post by tiernano »

invisiblerobot wrote: post #57
tiernano wrote: post #2

java might run at a decent speed... Might, but probably won't (jk, sorry, I couldn't help myself...) [edit Grammarly decided to remove some text when fixing spelling...]

Java runs at 90% the speed of C for most common benchmarks. It uses 50x the RAM to do so. But you're dead wrong to think java is slow. The only reason physics game engines are written in C++ is because physics game engines are written in C++.

You missed the jk (joking part) didn't you. Only Java apps I use are jdownloader and ikvm apps for servers...and well, they are slow...

Re: Ask HN: What'd be possible with 1000x faster CPUs?

#69

Post by selfhoster11 »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #53
ilaksh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electron basically IS an entire OS. Since Chromium has APIs for doing just about anything, including accessing the filesystem and USB devices and 500 other APIs.

If _accessing_ the filesystem counts toward being an OS, and not _implementing_ the filesystem, then I guess Qt and the stdlib of every lang is also "kind of an OS"

That's splitting hairs. Paravirtualised IO on a virtual machine doesn't make the guest OS running inside it, any less of an OS just because it has a simpler interface to the outside world than a SATA/SAS/NVMe controller.
Post reply on HN