Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04/08/09
I expect evolutionary developments such as this, but I don't see the need to re-design the platform for every iteration that comes out.
-and wasn't hyperthreading always there from the start?
They aren't going to make sweeping changes because they don't need to yet.
The Atom platform has proven itself in the market and they are simply going about milking it as they do with their other platforms.
Biz as usual for Intel.
Most tech bloggers don't seem to have any enthusiasm for the Atom platform anyway as they don't seem to get it.
The market seems to though.
04/08/09
Bugs.
04/08/09
04/08/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
I love hearing stories like these. One day cellphones will probably be as powerful as today's fastest supercomputers (if we are still using cellphones). It's so neat to know how quickly technology changes. The space shuttles are still running on 1MB of RAM and are about 0.005 percent as powerful as an xbox 360.
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
"One day cellphones will probably be as powerful as today's fastest supercomputers"
Not sure that's true anymore. The fastest supercomputer today can achieve 1.5 petaflops. I could not find exact information about this, but I would expect a phone like the iPhone to be rated at around 0.5 gigaflops (it performs more or less at the level of a 400MHz G3 computer).
Anyway, that's a difference of 3000 times, in other words, you'd have to double the performance of the phone 11-12 times to get it up to the performance of today's fastest supercomputers.
How many generations do you think Moore's law has left? Certainly not enough to double performance 11-12 times. If we're lucky we'll be able to squeeze out two-three more generations of smaller chips before Moore's law is no longer able to be satisfied. We're approaching the physical limits here.
So, supposing someday we do have cellphones with today's super-computer power, this will 1) take much, much longer than it has in the past 2) be prerequisite on changing the fundamental way our computers work.
03/20/09
Oops, I just realized. That's not a difference of 3000 times, that's a difference of 3,000,000 times. Such a difference could never be made up for using computers that work on the same physical principles as the ones we have today.
03/20/09
Everyone has known that there is a physical limit to the speed/size of individual processor cores for some time (Remember the high end PIVs?). But that doesn't directly translate into the failure of Moore's Law.
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09
03/20/09