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

91–97 of 97 posts

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

#91

Post by mid-kid »

throwaway81523 wrote: post #8

Realistically, AI network training at the level being done by corporations with big server farms, becomes accessible to solo devs and hobbyists (let's count GPU's as general purpose). So if you want your own network for Stable Diffusion or Leela Chess, you can do on your own PC. I think that is the most interesting obvious consequence. Also, large scale data hoarding becomes far more affordable (I assume the petabyte…

> Also, large scale data hoarding becomes far more affordable (I assume the petabyte ram modules also mean exabyte disk drives).

It will also mean data in general will be bigger and scale accordingly.

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

#93

Post by mburee »

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.

I'll switch to emacs the day they implement an Acme or Sam emulator, until then, ed.

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

#94

Post by MH15 »

Tepix wrote: post #89

One thing i'd like to see would be smart traffic lights. For example as soon as a person finishied crossing the road, when there is noone else it switches back to green immediately.

This totally be done with existing CV tech- think pedestrian detection in self driving cars.

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

#95

Post by VoodooJuJu »

Cheaper employees. With faster CPU's, they won't need to understand leetcode level optimization, i.e. they won't need expensive or sophisticated training. Just find someone with a pulse and stick them in front of the computer. Less-than-ideal big O's won't be an issue with this kind of speed.

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

#96

Post by seer-zig »

solomatov wrote: post #61
invisiblerobot wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From what I know, the major C++ engines (Unity, Unreal) have GC in them. Using GC does not automatically mean that latency is out the window.

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

#97

Post by [deleted] »

seer-zig wrote: post #96
solomatov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

From what I know, the major C++ engines (Unity, Unreal) have GC in them. Using GC does not automatically mean that latency is out the window.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN