Is there an equivalent with energy costs?
How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
101–110 of 225 posts
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, RAM is significantly faster than even SSD, and now I don't have to muck about w/ a 2nd drive :) Not to mention the spinning rust is cheaper.
Sure, but that RAM isn't :) I can get a 60gb ssd for under 20 bucks (I just checked 18.99 on amazon - even I'm a little surprised at how cheap that is) That 32gb of ram is at least a crisp hundred (which also - fucking mind blowing. First time I ever added a part to a PC, it was to add 256mb of ram, and that was huge deal)
Yes, but the RAM is mostly for the gaming. It means I can easily switch between snappy desktop orrr burning a bunch on minecraft worlds and clients or whatever random game is out there. So. A lot more useful than an SSD ;)
Also I'd be concerned about any SSD you can get for that price.
And, frankly, you don't need that much RAM to have a pleasant desktop experience. Most of that is just for the gaming. Just a gig or two of file cache for the hot stuff. Which is what your OS usually does anyway.
The tower my workplace bought me is also spinning rust, and they for some reason put an enormous amount of RAM in it too. Only 5 gigs are actually being used for caching. The OS can't figure out what to do with the rest after having, I suppose loaded browser (few hundred megs), VMWare, OpenOffice etc. Even if I was running something more bloaty than Mate I doubt I could find a way to burn more than another gigabyte :)
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yet somehow this is fairly obscure knowledge unless you're into serious game programming or a similar field. Because the impact in optimizing hardware like that can be not so important in many applications. Getting the absolute most out of your hardware is very clearly important in game programming, but web apps where scale being served is not huge (vast majority)? Not so much. And in this context developer time is…
TBH I don't think cloud gaming is a long term solution. It might be a medium term solution for people with cheap laptops but eventually the chip in cheap laptops will be able to produce photo realistic graphics and there will be no point going any further than that
Photo realistic graphics ought to be enough for anybody? This seems unlikely, there's so many aspects to graphical immersion that there's still plenty of room for improvement and AAA games will find them. Photo realistic graphics is a rather vague target, it depends on what and how much you're rendering. Then you need to consider that demand grows with supply, with eg. stuff like higher resolutions, even higher refresh rates.
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#104Okay since we're not going to improve the speed of light any time soon, here's my idea for speeding up CA to NL roundtrip: let's straight shot a cable through the center of the earth.
Read somewhere that neutrino particles are interesting in this regard, as they travel straight trough the earth.
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
What item #3 tells you is that any performance gains in the last decade and a half you've experienced have been driven by multi-core, not faster processors. And that means Amdahl's Law is more important than Moore's Law these days. Uh or storage and networking? Not sure why you would leave that out, since they're the bottleneck in many programs. The slowest things are the first things you should optimize
Yeah... SSDs are so much faster than spinning disk it's not even funny. I literally refuse to run a machine that boots its main OS from spinning disk anymore. The 60 bucks to throw an SSD into it is so incredibly cheap for what you get. My wife's work gave her a (fairly basic but still fine) thinkpad - except they left the main drive as a fucking 5400rpm hdd. Then acted like assclowns when we repeatedly showed them t…
My wife was a teacher and we had a similar story. They gave her a perfectly fine MacBook with spinning disk and the smallest memory possible (this was about 10 years ago). I upgraded the RAM to max and the disk to SSD and just put the original pieces away. She was happy, and when it came time to turn it in, we just put the original bits back in.
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#106Not an intuitive thing but the data is fascinating. A couple of notes of people who are confused by it: 1) The 'ns' next to the box is a graph legend not a data label (normally that would be in a box labeled legend to distinguish it from graph data) 2) The weird box and rectangle thing on the top is a slider, I didn't notice that until I was looking at the code and said "what slider?" 3) The only changes from 2005 to…
If you look at single-threaded processor benchmarks, CPUs are still getting faster. The new i9's are 20% faster than the next-fastest chips. It's definitely not doubling every two years but it's still noticeable.
Can you explain how to square that with the link saying compressing data hasn't gotten any faster since 2005?
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#107"Commodity network" is 400 gbit/sec?! I want that. I mean, it exists, but is still pretty exotic afaik.
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#108Not an intuitive thing but the data is fascinating. A couple of notes of people who are confused by it: 1) The 'ns' next to the box is a graph legend not a data label (normally that would be in a box labeled legend to distinguish it from graph data) 2) The weird box and rectangle thing on the top is a slider, I didn't notice that until I was looking at the code and said "what slider?" 3) The only changes from 2005 to…
If you look at single-threaded processor benchmarks, CPUs are still getting faster. The new i9's are 20% faster than the next-fastest chips. It's definitely not doubling every two years but it's still noticeable. https://valid.x86.fr/bench/1 Can you explain how to square that with the link saying compressing data hasn't gotten any faster since 2005?
> Can you explain how to square that with the link saying compressing data hasn't gotten any faster since 2005?
Compression may be bottlenecked by ram (L2 or L3 cache) access speed, or maybe even dram (main memory) access speed.
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#109Not an intuitive thing but the data is fascinating. A couple of notes of people who are confused by it: 1) The 'ns' next to the box is a graph legend not a data label (normally that would be in a box labeled legend to distinguish it from graph data) 2) The weird box and rectangle thing on the top is a slider, I didn't notice that until I was looking at the code and said "what slider?" 3) The only changes from 2005 to…
If you look at single-threaded processor benchmarks, CPUs are still getting faster. The new i9's are 20% faster than the next-fastest chips. It's definitely not doubling every two years but it's still noticeable. https://valid.x86.fr/bench/1 Can you explain how to square that with the link saying compressing data hasn't gotten any faster since 2005?
SIMD - compressing has gotten faster, but (assuming OP is correct rather than just missing info) the reference algorithm didn't have room to take advantage of SIMD. The relevant improvements since 2010 or so mostly look like bandwidth improvements not latency, and coincide with increasing ubiquity of SIMD instructions and SIMD-friendly algorithms.
Re: How “latency numbers everybody should know” decreased from 1990–2020
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at single-threaded processor benchmarks, CPUs are still getting faster. The new i9's are 20% faster than the next-fastest chips. It's definitely not doubling every two years but it's still noticeable. https://valid.x86.fr/bench/1 Can you explain how to square that with the link saying compressing data hasn't gotten any faster since 2005?
> Can you explain how to square that with the link saying compressing data hasn't gotten any faster since 2005? Compression may be bottlenecked by ram (L2 or L3 cache) access speed, or maybe even dram (main memory) access speed.
That wouldn't make sense - compression has very cache-friendly access patterns, and would benefit greatly from the observed improvements in memory bandwidth.