Intel identifies silicon dioxide successor for chips, due in 2007

[Q Classic]

yeah, the average user actually whinges about microsoft products, be it justified or not.

so while you're right in that the average user doesn't really care about clock speed, it's because the average user doesn't really understand what it is. they do care, however, about getting the fastest (and consequently, the "best") that they can get, which is why they do care about clock speed--just not for the right reasons.

the average user here associates better computer with perceived speed, and that's what the higher numbers seem to signify. it means nothing to them that a crusoe chip can run everything they want ad a reasonable speed if it's perceived to be slow.

i can't tell you how many times (i'm also in it) i've been complained to about how slow their desktop p4/1.8ghz is compared to the tiny small-form factor celeron 400s are that their neighbor has. then when they get them, they complain how slow it is compared to the 2.6ghz desktops ordered for the computer labs.

if they don't know the clock speed, they'll go for what looks the newest, too.

which is why the imacs get so popular, even if they suck compared to the powermac towers.

[Q Classic]

and on another thought. this speed drive is mainly by geek males.

instead of comparing cars, which is what the jocks tended to do, to compare their schlongs (bigger, more powerful...)

modern geeks compare their schlongs by seeing who's is smaller and faster. (well, not the schlongs, but their cell phones, their die sizes, thier clock speeds...)

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i can't tell you how many times (i'm also in it) i've been complained to about how slow their desktop p4/1.8ghz is compared to the tiny small-form factor celeron 400s are that their neighbor has. then when they get them, they complain how slow it is compared to the 2.6ghz desktops ordered for the computer labs.

This reminds me that once we changed the comp of one of our users (one who didn't know anything about computers but always complained that she wants a new one, even though the old one was perfectly fit for her; (yes the user was a she ) ) with an older and slower one, put in a new box. She was delighted

[Q Classic]

yeah, it's become my policy to not mention anything about the specs of the new computer i get people.

even if it's second hand from somebody at the opposite end of the building.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
if people didn't give a damn about mhz/ghz... we wouldn't have 3ghz chips today.

Because 3GHz CPUs have a much higher profit margin than 1.4GHz ones?

Do you think an average computer user can tell the difference between a 1.4GHz Wintel box and a 3GHz one? No, because even the slower box is waiting to do something most of the time.

Of course, 90% is probably an over estimation, but not by much.

[Q Classic]

Because 3GHz CPUs have a much higher profit margin than 1.4GHz ones?

Do you think an average computer user can tell the difference between a 1.4GHz Wintel box and a 3GHz one? No, because even the slower box is waiting to do something most of the time.

Of course, 90% is probably an over estimation, but not by much.

ur, see:

to a point, you're right. people don't really care about ghz. why? because it's really quite abstract to them. memory means both HD space and RAM to the average non-techie.
gigahertz to them is just a measure of how new and "good" a computer is; they have no real idea what the difference is between an Athlon or a Pentium 4.

the fact is, though, that higher numbers sell. they always have. Joe User might not know which one's a better performer, but he'll probably think an Athlon 2800+ is better than an Pentium 4 2.5GHz chip--and if it's cheaper, he'll buy the 2800+, simply because its "better".

the real effect of this is that it pushes the chip companies to develop faster and faster chips, just to make their product the "best". it has very little to do with real performance.

if it did, you wouldn't've had AMD rebranding the Athlon 1.1GHz as an Athlon 1700+.

and

while you're right in that the average user doesn't really care about clock speed, it's because the average user doesn't really understand what it is. they do care, however, about getting the fastest (and consequently, the "best") that they can get, which is why they do care about clock speed--just not for the right reasons.

the average user here associates better computer with perceived speed, and that's what the higher numbers seem to signify. it means nothing to them that a crusoe chip can run everything they want ad a reasonable speed if it's perceived to be slow.

i can't tell you how many times (i'm also in it) i've been complained to about how slow their desktop p4/1.8ghz is compared to the tiny small-form factor celeron 400s are that their neighbor has. then when they get them, they complain how slow it is compared to the 2.6ghz desktops ordered for the computer labs.

if they don't know the clock speed, they'll go for what looks the newest, too.

[Urban Ranger]

My point is Joe User doesn't know what the hell is going on. He doesn't know what a CPU is, some knows that he needs one in a PC. Some others think a CPU is the same as the system unit. Same with RAM, motherboard, etc., etc.

Do you know what compressor it is in the A/C unit in your room?

[Q Classic]

yes, actually. except i don't have one in my room, we have central air.

that aside:

if you read what i wrote above, you'd see that i know that Joe User hasn't a clue what's going on inside the black box. it's impenetrable to him --it is a black box-- but he doesn't care as long as it does what he wants, looks new, and is something he can feel good about purchasing.

the way the marketing and common knowledge is, is that speed is the key to the best computer. whether that's correct or not is immaterial--speed sells.

because speed sells, Joe User will buy when he finds a chip sold as the fastest and newest one in existence. it's obviously got to be the best, right?

so if speed doesn't sell, why is apple trying so hard to say that their g5 is the fastest desktop chip in existence? most mac users have no real idea what's inside their box. if speed doesn't sell, why are Intel and AMD dueling over who has the fastest piece of silicon? why are they spending oodles on marketing to tell people that they've got the best, fastest chip? surely you don't think it's because the geeks pay attention to those telly, mainstream magazine, newspaper, and radio ads?

the point is, speed sells, and whether the user needs it or not is a moot point, because people will buy what they think --what they've been told-- is the best.

[Urban Ranger]

Speed sells? Nah, speed does not equal to performance. Which is what Apple really is trying to say.

Anyway, AMD and Intel aren't selling to 90% of the users. They are selling to the remaining 10% who have influence over the other 90%. People like CTO's, IT managers, and your average geek. I can't remember Intel commercials on the TV making claims about speeds. Those commericals are about branding.

But then again, I haven't seen one of these ads in a very long time.

[Q Classic]

ur: see

so while you're right in that the average user doesn't really care about clock speed, it's because the average user doesn't really understand what it is. they do care, however, about getting the fastest (and consequently, the "best") that they can get, which is why they do care about clock speed--just not for the right reasons.

the average user here associates better computer with perceived speed, and that's what the higher numbers seem to signify. it means nothing to them that a crusoe chip can run everything they want ad a reasonable speed if it's perceived to be slow.

and

to a point, you're right. people don't really care about ghz. why? because it's really quite abstract to them. memory means both HD space and RAM to the average non-techie.
gigahertz to them is just a measure of how new and "good" a computer is; they have no real idea what the difference is between an Athlon or a Pentium 4.

i know speed does not equate to performance. the average user does not. to them, the computer is a black box--obtuse and impenetrable. they open it up and they're terrified by the wires and the green cards and the orange light that stares back at them when it's plugged in. (incidentally, most computer companies these days are selling black boxes...)

because Joe User is told that speed is what makes or breaks a machine, that's what Joe User will base most of his purchase on. He will buy a Celeron 2.2GHz over a Pentium 1.8GHz because it's "faster". real-world performance is something beyond their current understanding, because they can't make heads or tails of the benchmarks. front-side bus speeds, the difference between rdram and ddr sdram mean nothing to them: their eyes glaze over and walk away.

if apple didn't care about selling on clockspeed, they would not have tv ads that blow a user out of the house because it's "so damn fast". if clockspeed didn't sell, apple wouldn't be printing ads that say the G5 is the fastest desktop in existence. if apple's trying to say that speed doesn't equal performance, they have a bizarre way of advertising it.

amd and intel are selling to 90% of the users. the geek market does not drive the computer market. the business market and the consumer market do, and the while the business market cares less about clock speed and more about upkeep/ease of deployment, the home user does, in the most ass-backwards and incorrect way.

[mrmitchell]

The thing I don't understand is, who needs a PC that fast?

When we've got our virtual reality suits, our multithousand or million character games, online multiplayer games of huge numbers of people, etc., it will become more obvious.

And even without it, Word loading in 1s instead of 3s would be neat.

[axi]

Scientists use supercomputers

Only a very small minority of scientists ever gets time on supercomputers. The rest of us do our jobs with our modest PCs. Right now, no scientific field looks the same as it was 10-15 years ago: our scientific capabilities have advanced ages, simply because of the widespread use of PCs and the Internet. In fact the only scientists that do their work pretty much like they used to are the ones using supercomputers.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
if apple's trying to say that speed doesn't equal performance, they have a bizarre way of advertising it.

As I said, I haven't seen any of those myself.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
amd and intel are selling to 90% of the users. the geek market does not drive the computer market. the business market and the consumer market do, and the while the business market cares less about clock speed and more about upkeep/ease of deployment, the home user does, in the most ass-backwards and incorrect way.

My original point was geeks influence other people. I am sure you have had a whole bunch of people asking you about what computer to buy like I do. It gets to be a pain in the neck at times.

But the geek market perhaps do drive the computer market. Who else would by a P4 3.06Ghz HT at $900+? A home computer user?

[Q Classic]

As I said, I haven't seen any of those myself.

http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/
take the one on the left.

as for your point that geeks influence people, i don't argue that. too many people ask me, and usually it's about brands, too. in any case, most geeks i know don't even consider telling users that the mhz/ghz thing isn't the biggest factor in performance; and since Joe User doesn't know better...

in any case, speed sells, whether it's needed or not.

regular people will buy v-6s even if they never go off-road. why? 'cause it's "better". it's the same with computers. regular people will buy 3.0GHz computers even if they only use it to browse, word process, and email, 'cause it's "better".
that's the primary reason why microterminals that only did email and browsing failed so miserably in the home market. it didn't matter that it's all they needed...

in a culture of affluence, people rarely buy enough to just meet their need.

[Az]

Originally posted by axi




Only a very small minority of scientists ever gets time on supercomputers. The rest of us do our jobs with our modest PCs. Right now, no scientific field looks the same as it was 10-15 years ago: our scientific capabilities have advanced ages, simply because of the widespread use of PCs and the Internet. In fact the only scientists that do their work pretty much like they used to are the ones using supercomputers.

what kind of scientist are you?

[Q Classic]

obviously one who doesn't get much time on the supercomputers.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Scientists use supercomputers.

Scientists don't on the whole use supercomputers. They only do for really intensive things like lattice gauge theory. Even sophisticated computer simulations for the big particle colliders are run on PCs.

It seems to me though that a lot more effort could go into making decent C++ compilers. We particle physicists often have programs which were originally written in Fortran77, but have been added to and 'evolved' over the years. There is some effort to turn them into C++ code (for compatibility issues and modularization), but even with severe streamlining of the code the C++ compilers take so unbelievably long and take up huge amounts of memory.

There is no point in having fast processors if we are going to write bloatware.

[Q Classic]

that's 'cause c++ sucks.

ML all the way, man.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not when they can be mass produced. You should read your Wired magazine more. Two American firms have learn how to produce gem quality stones for dollars a carat. The second firm is trying to build diamond wafers specifically for use in circuitry, and despite yavoon's claim, they're not that far from acheiving the level they want.

care to wager? one guy who has the real good technique using chemical deposition has it pattented(or pending?). either way. he is the owner of the technique. and as such u can't have a mad dash race to it.

secondly they are not even close to making diamond WAFERS in mass production as the plan is to finance their silicon replacement dreams by selling more normal diamonds.

seeing as they haven't gotten to stage 1 and one guy owns the rights to the process and the technology involved in making diamond wafers in ur next dell. this is still quite far off.

but if u disagree we can make it a bet.

[Dr Strangelove]

When I first glanced at this thread I thought the title said "Sulfer dioxide". I thought to myself: "Now there's a computer that really stinks!"

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ML all the way, man.

What's 'ML'?

[DaShi]

I'm a Joe User and I think that more MHz is better.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If you give up SiO₂, you might as well switch to GaAs or GaN.

I hope so - that's part of my PhD project - polycrystalline GaN fabrication.

Of course all of this will shortly be obsolete when we discover the secrets of spintronic materials and they have to design all new quantum computers.

And the only scientists who use supercomputers are the wuss theoreticians who calculate band structures instead of actually designing an experiment.

[Q Classic]

ml is:
http://www.smlnj.org/