IBM Combines Electrics, Optics On Same Chip

Status
Not open for further replies.

chickenhoagie

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
517
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]K2N hater[/nom]Wonder if it's coming in a x86 flavour...[/citation]
screw x86! just give me the 64-bit chip and let me try to max this puppy out..note, i say try.
 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
618
0
18,980
0
Hah, all this time my old man was right saying CPU's would eventually move to optical connects. I didn't see how it would be possible. This could be a game changer, now we just need to overcome the shrinking process and silicon issue and we should be set for the future.
 

eyemaster

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2009
750
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]Proves once again, Intel and AMD aren't the leaders of the industry, IMO.IBM is still the largest IT business out there[/citation]
IBM is more in Service Delivery and Mainframes, AMD / Intel is in consumer chips. 2 different fields.
 

squallypie

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2010
233
0
18,680
0
This article kinda proves to me that IBM is like the godfather of Intel/AMD/Microsoft. But i hope there are other companies out there that are as technologically advanced as IBM.

"10x denser integration structure than today's chips"

scares me!
 

caparc

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
78
0
18,630
0
The way I read the announcement is, they don't have a clue how to mass produce this, and when the firist "product" appears, in 5-10 years nobody will be able to afford it anyway.
 

formin

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
114
0
18,680
0
optical buses within chips, thats cool!!!
getting info from one side of the chip to the other is quite challenging with electrons and copper.

oooo or a 5,000,000 X PCI-E slot .... droool
 

sillysmy

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2010
1
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]32-bit chip? if were talking about the same thing here, jackass.[/citation]

x86 is actually the instruction set architecture that virtually all modern AMD/Intel consumer level microprocessors are based on. x86 has nothing to do with the distinction between 32 abd 64-bit chips. What you believe to be 64-bit chips are actually still part of the x86 family of processors. x64 is just a shorthand for x86-64, the 64-bit extension of the x86 instruction set.

Next time you decide to call someone a jackass, you should do your homework first. Especially when said person never insulted you first and called you names. It only makes you look like what you called him.
 
To add to your x86 comment in response to Mr. Jackass. x86 actually started as a 16 bit instruction set as an extension to the intel 8 bit 8086 chip in 1978. chickenhoagie dont be a douche when you don't have a clue.
 

deletemach_kernel

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2010
97
0
18,680
0
@ sillysmy
I agree ...those comments really made chickenhoagie look like a well......
especially since he didnt know what he was even talking about..

it would really be fun if IBM bought out AMD. imagine....apple goes back to using IBM (amd) chips..... field day for amd fanboys.....wishful thinking.
 

deletemach_kernel

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2010
97
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]bison88[/nom]Hah, all this time my old man was right saying CPU's would eventually move to optical connects. I didn't see how it would be possible. This could be a game changer, now we just need to overcome the shrinking process and silicon issue and we should be set for the future.[/citation]
in that case your old man is a very intelligent man...hats off to him.... i think u owe him a beer ;)
 

chickenhoagie

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
517
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]sillysmy[/nom]x86 is actually the instruction set architecture that virtually all modern AMD/Intel consumer level microprocessors are based on. x86 has nothing to do with the distinction between 32 abd 64-bit chips. What you believe to be 64-bit chips are actually still part of the x86 family of processors. x64 is just a shorthand for x86-64, the 64-bit extension of the x86 instruction set.Next time you decide to call someone a jackass, you should do your homework first. Especially when said person never insulted you first and called you names. It only makes you look like what you called him.[/citation]
sorry..perhaps if he explained it the way you did, rather than blatantly asking me if i knew what i was talking about then I wouldn't respond the way I did. I don't take kindly to flaming nerds who think their knowledge of computers make them superior to people who are still learning..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY