- Status
An obvious but often missed detail. The smaller you make something, the more it costs. This is a simple shopping logic that has been true for as long as we all have been shopping. Buy the small bag, you pay 50-100% (or more) for the item. Why do people pay such ludicrous mark ups for a drink in a restaurant? Is the convenience of being able to be called 24 hours a day really a good thing?
A laptop costs, at least, twice as much as a desktop of the same 'power'. I'd bet most people who do purchase laptops -really- do not need them, the same can probably be said for those who own things like smartphones, tablets and so on.
A laptop costs, at least, twice as much as a desktop of the same 'power'. I'd bet most people who do purchase laptops -really- do not need them, the same can probably be said for those who own things like smartphones, tablets and so on.
toastninja17
Distinguished
- Aug 15, 2009
- 315
- 0
- 18,780
Homeboy2
Distinguished
- Mar 21, 2006
- 736
- 0
- 18,990
[citation][nom]adamboy64[/nom]Ah, yes indeed. With this new more efficient chip, I'd like to see a ultra efficient 1Ghz version. I want more battery life![/citation]
[citation][nom]adamboy64[/nom]Ah, yes indeed. With this new more efficient chip, I'd like to see a ultra efficient 1Ghz version. I want more battery life![/citation]
[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]He never said that, why do people keep quoting this?And as far as needing this tech in a PHONE. no.In a multifunction personal device with included communications then yes. Seriously, they should just stop calling them phones, they're not even good for making calls anymore. It's more screen than phone and they're static flat not curved to your face, last time i checked i wasn't an NES character with a perfectly flat area from my mouth to ear.[/citation]
Check again, the entire top of your head is perfectly flat.
[citation][nom]adamboy64[/nom]Ah, yes indeed. With this new more efficient chip, I'd like to see a ultra efficient 1Ghz version. I want more battery life![/citation]
[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]He never said that, why do people keep quoting this?And as far as needing this tech in a PHONE. no.In a multifunction personal device with included communications then yes. Seriously, they should just stop calling them phones, they're not even good for making calls anymore. It's more screen than phone and they're static flat not curved to your face, last time i checked i wasn't an NES character with a perfectly flat area from my mouth to ear.[/citation]
Check again, the entire top of your head is perfectly flat.
Cant they just make a longer battery life like not require recharging for 1 month of usage? or may be the ability to play HD movie. Who cares about console gaming, 20mp camera, 3D movie that need the silly glass! If I can bring my phone with my HD movie in flash movie or build-in memory, then plug into my friend's 40" LCD TV that would be great.
[citation][nom]cburke82[/nom]I think we are very very very far from a phone or tablet taking over the console market. Size alone is a factor. You cant replace the abbility to game on a 40+" screen with friends on a phone/tablet size screen. And then there is also the fact that no matter how much power you can pack into a phone/tablet sized interface you will always have the abbility to pack more into a console sized interface plain and simple. However with this type of tech coming out it seem possible to have your phone replace things like the Nintindo 3Ds or PSP. That would be awsome to get close to console performance on your phone without having to carry a phone and PSP[/citation]
talk about short sighted.
the phone/tablet would dock into something that has hdmi out and plugged into the wall for recharge, this doc would also have the device in it to read the controllers signals.
in all honesty, its possible. the ps3 basically has 512 mb of ram in it, to do 1080p graphics, it needs 1gb, which isnt that big of a leap. and if you are talking tablet size, than its even more doable.
what i really want to see is how these arm cpus compare to intel and amd. i mean these things are small and require next to no cooling, you could put 4 into a motherboard and probably not equal 1 higher end intel, and you would get 16cores (armcpus tend to sell for sub 100$ after long, because of the cellphone market)
talk about short sighted.
the phone/tablet would dock into something that has hdmi out and plugged into the wall for recharge, this doc would also have the device in it to read the controllers signals.
in all honesty, its possible. the ps3 basically has 512 mb of ram in it, to do 1080p graphics, it needs 1gb, which isnt that big of a leap. and if you are talking tablet size, than its even more doable.
what i really want to see is how these arm cpus compare to intel and amd. i mean these things are small and require next to no cooling, you could put 4 into a motherboard and probably not equal 1 higher end intel, and you would get 16cores (armcpus tend to sell for sub 100$ after long, because of the cellphone market)
I am all for progress and more power in cell phones and tablets, and especially extended battery life. But the future of gaming is not on a 4-5 inch phone screen. If it is, I need to start investing in lenscrafters,houreyes and lasik, because all those gamers will need glasses and or laser surgery to correct their vision.
To those who also wince when they see comments akin to "we don't need this, I want that":
It's OK, there'll simply always be people who don't care about technological progression and who are not visionaries.
I'm sure that many of us welcome the wealth of possibilities created due to breakthroughs such as increased computing power and higher efficiency.
I certainly wouldn't mind having 1 portable device that could act as my phone, organizer, main work computer (like a desktop/laptop via docking), main gaming machine (docking again), media center (docking), payment device, etc. that's synced to the cloud.
Of course, there'll probably always be specialization and marketing in certain areas, but the lines are blurring...
It's OK, there'll simply always be people who don't care about technological progression and who are not visionaries.
I'm sure that many of us welcome the wealth of possibilities created due to breakthroughs such as increased computing power and higher efficiency.
I certainly wouldn't mind having 1 portable device that could act as my phone, organizer, main work computer (like a desktop/laptop via docking), main gaming machine (docking again), media center (docking), payment device, etc. that's synced to the cloud.
Of course, there'll probably always be specialization and marketing in certain areas, but the lines are blurring...
Gin Fushicho
Distinguished
- Mar 11, 2009
- 1,776
- 0
- 19,790
Qualcomm is the future it sounds like. If Microsoft develops a full OS around the processors, then we may be able to get away with more.
Console level graphics sounds great for the power usage. I think this could be wonderful for content consumption. Think of computers the size of your hand, running Windows 8 and being able to play pc titles like TF2 or WoW; and doing it with a fraction of the power used in an x86 PC.
@ThemanBEAR Yes, we do, It dosent matter if its quad core or single core, Its about more power, and less energy consume, If we have a truck which carries 1 ton whiskey with 1 litter gas consume but with 100 km/h. 4 trucks which only able to do 50 km and consumes 0.5 liter to same destination.
What you carry is 4 ton whiskey, coz of the speed single can carry 2 ton for for consume of same.
If single core soulutions were best no one would ever touch multi core cpus they are not idiots and even intel given up from this long ago. Sorry for my sucky english.
What you carry is 4 ton whiskey, coz of the speed single can carry 2 ton for for consume of same.
If single core soulutions were best no one would ever touch multi core cpus they are not idiots and even intel given up from this long ago. Sorry for my sucky english.
I would like to have a phone with at least one day to last without charging it not a supercomputer phone. I mean you dont need such quad core to make a phone call. Now people would say yeah but we can play game, surf net, read email and such then get a tablet loser.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
Amazing to know that we do have the hardware to do this. But eventually mobile processors will also run into a thermal limit - much like Pentium 4 did. Time to start learning ways to program efficiently.
RobinPanties
Distinguished
- Feb 13, 2007
- 44
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]cburke82[/nom]You cant replace the abbility to game on a 40+" screen with friends on a phone/tablet size screen....plain and simple. [/citation]
Nah, not so plain and simple. All you need is one of the following:
1. High Res Built-in projector
2. Wireless connectivity to your 40"+ screen
3. Someone to develop hi res glasses that make you think you're looking at something 40"+
Nah, not so plain and simple. All you need is one of the following:
1. High Res Built-in projector
2. Wireless connectivity to your 40"+ screen
3. Someone to develop hi res glasses that make you think you're looking at something 40"+
mastadisasta_31
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2009
- 24
- 0
- 18,510
This is not too much for a phone. If not in the phone then how else will the technology advance so fast? This technology has to be used in something the customer will buy and buy and buy again. And the smart phone is whats going to make the tech grow and grow. So, YES we do need this type of speed and faster in our smart phones. If you don't like it then just buy a simple flip phone with no touchscreen. That's what I did for my mom, so simple.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]talk about short sighted. the phone/tablet would dock into something that has hdmi out and plugged into the wall for recharge, this doc would also have the device in it to read the controllers signals.in all honesty, its possible. the ps3 basically has 512 mb of ram in it, to do 1080p graphics, it needs 1gb, which isnt that big of a leap. and if you are talking tablet size, than its even more doable. what i really want to see is how these arm cpus compare to intel and amd. i mean these things are small and require next to no cooling, you could put 4 into a motherboard and probably not equal 1 higher end intel, and you would get 16cores (armcpus tend to sell for sub 100$ after long, because of the cellphone market)[/citation]
So resolution will stop to increase and game quality will stagnate (kinda like in the console market)? Great future indeed. A smaller form factor will always be inferior to a bigger form factor at any given time. Maybe you heard about a little thing called heat dissipation?
So resolution will stop to increase and game quality will stagnate (kinda like in the console market)? Great future indeed. A smaller form factor will always be inferior to a bigger form factor at any given time. Maybe you heard about a little thing called heat dissipation?
lradunovic77
Distinguished
- Dec 20, 2009
- 405
- 0
- 18,780
JamesSneed
Judicious
- Oct 26, 2009
- 2,783
- 116
- 32,490
Its pretty obvious Bill Gates only said that because he was trying to market DOS and at the time DOS had just bumped up the base memory to support 640K.
members: v4nquist
homeboy and santeane
wrong,wrong, wrong
internet lad is correct, Bill Gates never said that
The reason why people say that is because of an INTERPRETATION
FROM(quoting santeane) :
-------------------
Yes he did say it. He denied it in a 1996 interview, however it's the 1st time he's ever done so. See, usually if someone is misquoted, they're going to want to deny it right away. Not 15 years later. He's just trying to continue sounding like a visionary by rewriting history. I mean, its not like its the only time he's done it either.
If you look back at a previous interview in 1989 he's also noted as saying "It [640K] was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address base for applications within — oh five or six years people were complaining."
and
"I have to say in 1981 making those decisions I felt like I was providing enough freedom for ten years, that is the move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time"
--------------
It's because of THAT INTERVIEW that people have extrapolated/translated as Bill saying that 640k is enough ( "That's what Bill was implying" )
by those exact comments Santeane
homeboy, don't ignorantly disparage someone that's correct for ignorance.
homeboy and santeane
wrong,wrong, wrong
internet lad is correct, Bill Gates never said that
The reason why people say that is because of an INTERPRETATION
FROM(quoting santeane) :
-------------------
Yes he did say it. He denied it in a 1996 interview, however it's the 1st time he's ever done so. See, usually if someone is misquoted, they're going to want to deny it right away. Not 15 years later. He's just trying to continue sounding like a visionary by rewriting history. I mean, its not like its the only time he's done it either.
If you look back at a previous interview in 1989 he's also noted as saying "It [640K] was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address base for applications within — oh five or six years people were complaining."
and
"I have to say in 1981 making those decisions I felt like I was providing enough freedom for ten years, that is the move from 64k to 640k felt like something that would last a great deal of time"
--------------
It's because of THAT INTERVIEW that people have extrapolated/translated as Bill saying that 640k is enough ( "That's what Bill was implying" )
by those exact comments Santeane
homeboy, don't ignorantly disparage someone that's correct for ignorance.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram