|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Where computers are going: Simple estimated specs
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Bored
The current rate of advancement of computer technology is approximately +100% per 1.25 years for the past two and a half years. Usually this rate is +100% per 18-24 months. With that in mind I'm going to just do some extrapolating on the optimistic end of the curve for 4 time frames out into the future for the 3 basic specs of desktop PC of the same price.
Now:
Processor: 3.01Ghz 32bit w/ 64 bit registers
RAM: 1GB
HDD: 120GB
2007-2008:
Processor:~48.16Ghz 32bit
RAM: 16 GB
HDD: 1.92 TB(terabytes~ 1000 GB)
2012-2013
Processor:~770.56Ghz
RAM: 256GB
HDD: 30.72 TB
2017-2018
Processor:~12.33Thz(Terahertz)
RAM: 4TB(Terabytes)
HDD: 480TB
2022-2023--Think Star Trek Holo decks possible here
Processor:~197Thz
RAM: 64TB
HDD: 7.7 PB(Petabytes)
Posted by: Null Actor
The problem being, of course, that we are set to hit physical barriers within the next 5 years, thus preventing current CPU methods from continuing to follow moore's law. At which point, using hertz as a measurement will most likely become obsolete.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
I look for somekind of technological slump to occur as far as new technology goes until some other path has been refined. Such as Quantum computing or alternative methods to narrow down the die size such as using Sulfolobus shibatae. 
Posted by: redwench
mmmmm, youre sexy when you talk bacteria.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ion Silverbolt
Sulfolobus shibatae.
|
Geez, man, you're obsessed with that word 
Posted by: SKYHN
I would think by 2007 we would have larger hard drives than 1.92tb. We are up to 200gb+ right now.
Posted by: TheeMon
i NEED a 1000gig hd now... i cant wait till 07!
Posted by: taco_fox
hmm.. I still haven't filled up 40 gigs worth.
Posted by: Bobaroo
Hehe, yea I would not mind a 1000gb HD.
Sooner or later I will have to get a 120gb+ HD.
Posted by: Freak
Quote:
Originally posted by Bored
2022-2023--Think Star Trek Holo decks possible here
Processor:~197Thz
RAM: 64TB
HDD: 7.7 PB(Petabytes)
|
Wonder if I can play a game called "EverRealLife" by then?
Probably gonna be made by Verant too
Posted by: Bored
Quote:
|
The problem being, of course, that we are set to hit physical barriers within the next 5 years, thus preventing current CPU methods from continuing to follow moore's law
|
A very valid point, however remember there is still a tremendous amount of potential "bits" on a CD sized disc. I'm sure scientists will eventually find a way to use X-ray or something like that manipulate individual atoms and have hundreds of layers on a disc. There are several tens of thousands of layers of atoms on a CD. I've even invisioned a drive that could manipulate the electron levels on individual atoms, having up to 4 bits stored on the outer electron shell of an atom.
Here's a random thought about Moore's Law that I'm not sure I've ever seen addressed. If I remember right Moore's Law addresses the "feedback" of each new computer technology making the next easier to invent. Now what if there is a variable based on world population that needs to be considered in there too. Bear with me on this while I explain.
You don't have to look hard to notice that world population is rising, slowly but steadily. Additionally each person's life is more involved in technology than it was even 5 years ago, on average. So you have more people and a higher percentage of them are educated about technology. Which means that it is more likely that someone will solve the "technological block" and in less time than the previous block was solved because there are more people with better educations working on it.
Despite the physical limits of existing technologies, computers should actually begin to accelerate even more within the next five years because all-new technologies are being researched by a larger, more educated groups than ever before. The really neat thing is this principle is beneficial whether they work together or not.
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
Originally posted by Bored
You don't have to look hard to notice that world population is rising, slowly but steadily. Additionally each person's life is more involved in technology than it was even 5 years ago, on average. So you have more people and a higher percentage of them are educated about technology. Which means that it is more likely that someone will solve the "technological block" and in less time than the previous block was solved because there are more people with better educations working on it.
|
From a sociological standpoint, this isn't quite correct. The global population is skyrocketing -- in underdeveloped third-world nations. Most of these people probably aren't ever going to touch a computer in their lifetimes, much less contribute to technological development.
On average, more people in developed nations are touching technology, but being able to check your email and being able to design electron-level computer hardware are two very, very different things. I'm willing to bet that the overall percentage of college graduates holding an electrical engineering or materials engineering degree specializing in computer hardware hasn't changed terribly much over the past few decades. 
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
Originally posted by Shalome
From a sociological standpoint, this isn't quite correct. The global population is skyrocketing -- in underdeveloped third-world nations. Most of these people probably aren't ever going to touch a computer in their lifetimes, much less contribute to technological development.
|
You never know, the country where the people drink cow urine could come up with a technological advancement the likes of which could very well change the world forever. Or perhaps they will just keep drinking cow urine
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
Originally posted by Bored
A very valid point, however remember there is still a tremendous amount of potential "bits" on a CD sized disc. I'm sure scientists will eventually find a way to use X-ray or something like that manipulate individual atoms and have hundreds of layers on a disc. There are several tens of thousands of layers of atoms on a CD. I've even invisioned a drive that could manipulate the electron levels on individual atoms, having up to 4 bits stored on the outer electron shell of an atom.
|
I wasn't talking about storage. I was very specifically talking about CPUs and their speeds.
Posted by: Bored
Well, I think the spintronic technology being largely researched for MRAM purposes also has promise in regards to processors. This technology has the potential to revolutionize the way compters work due to the quantum nature of electron spin: up, down, both. Granted a spintronic processor is likely still a decade or more away though since MRAM is still 2 or more years away.
Processors and memory could work in a base 3 system instead of base two, which gives some interesting problem solving options. For example you could create new logical statements that aren't limited to simply "yes/no, 1/0, on/off" truth tables. This would allow a computer to solve many 2 step problems in a single step, and nearly all 3 step problems in just two. So even if the clock speed was the same as a conventional processor, the spintronic processor would be at least 50% faster at making multiple step decisions(provided the code is optimized with this in mind).
Posted by: Null Actor
Computers work using binary statements because it is the nature of mathematics. A third option makes no sense for computing, until mathematics aren't the basis for computing.
Posted by: Bored
You count in base ten every day of your life, just like everyone else, and I'll bet you never once convert to binary and back to figure out how much you owe for a Big Mac at McDonalds. There's no reason a computer with spintronic switches can't count and store information in base 3, which is in fact the primary reason MRAM technology has so much storage potential.
It should be painfully obvious that if a single spintronic switch can count 0, 1, 2 and two can count 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 it needs far fewer switches and operations to manipulate and store the same amount of data. To count 0 to 8 in binary you need 4 switches. Sixteen binary switches gives you 65536 combinations of data, while a base 3 spintronic system could have
43,046,721 possible combinations of data or instructions in the same 16 switches. By the time you get to one word, 32 switches, binary stores up to 65536^2 combinations while base 3 could store
43,046, 721^2 combinations, or about 43,243,987 times as many combinations in the same space.
This means that many double word instructions could be made into a single step instruction set because the only reason they are multi-step now is because there's just not enough room in 32 bits to store every possible combination of simple commands and data you could want.
Posted by: Null Actor
Counting numbers in base three isn't the same as running logic in base three.
Posted by: Bored
For anyone else interested in this branch of technology I took the liberty of looking up some links related to Spintronics and Quantum computers. One of the links suggests that true Spintronic-Quantum computers will be vaible within 20 years.
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/20...fp3s1-csm.shtml
http://www.techtransfer.anl.gov/tec...pintronics.html
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0211358
They are getting very close
http://www.bizspaceinfotech.com/q04...m_computing.htm
|
|
|
|
|
