Ive been reading John Titors posts, and arguments for and against him. One argument i havent not seen so far is based on this quote by John,
"
What is the speed of the average computer in the future?
GHz is not a useful measurement. Computers are no longer measured by their speed as much as the number of variables (not calculations) they can handle per second."
I think it was 2004 that dual core processors first appeared. Because a CPU's frequency is barely increasing, but its cores are, in recent years people have gotten away from judging a chip by its frequency (3.3ghz) and instead focused on the total computations the chip can do.
I work in IT and I remember 2000 well. Back in 2000 the average CPU speed was around 1ghz. It was many years until around the 2ghz level that speed slowly increased while the chips cores increased.
"
What is the speed of the average computer in the future?
GHz is not a useful measurement. Computers are no longer measured by their speed as much as the number of variables (not calculations) they can handle per second."
I think it was 2004 that dual core processors first appeared. Because a CPU's frequency is barely increasing, but its cores are, in recent years people have gotten away from judging a chip by its frequency (3.3ghz) and instead focused on the total computations the chip can do.
I work in IT and I remember 2000 well. Back in 2000 the average CPU speed was around 1ghz. It was many years until around the 2ghz level that speed slowly increased while the chips cores increased.