Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberium Wolf
Nice thing! What is not nice is what is said in here:
Hewlett Packard outlines computer memory of the future
"The processor and memory could be exactly the same thing"
So basicaly CPU cost X, Memory Cost Y. Without taking consideration with the MB if we want to replace one of them we would either pay X or pay Y. With CPU+Memory we would pay X+Y. |
Good old capitalism at work here.
I'm sure they have hired extra securities and stricter screening process since the publishing of this new findings. And not to mention they can also tell Intel to take a hike while they start their own gig.
God bless America!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto
Either the article is not very scientific, or the chipmaker lacks some decent knowledge in biology. Memristors are not synapses for a simple reason... they cannot freely build up links to neighbouring memristors/synapses, which is a very important ability for the data/processing network in brains.
And the comparison of viruses 100 nm and todays transistors 40-50 nm and memristors 3nm was so stupid... the virus holds a whole RNA full of much more information then any of the listed devices (also RNA is 4-state while a single bit of information in transistors and memristors is usally limited to binary) on the other side it does not work like a synapsis in any way... so what was the purpose of the comparison to begin with?
The final sentence is what is basically the information that I was looking for in that article:
It explains how memristors work (basically like a DVD-RW but more dense and not optical)... and it explain the trade-off: they will increase the storage density at the cost of speed.
I wonder why the noise in the rest of the article is needed.
|
The article is indeed ornamental in many ways. It sugarcoats a lot about a technology that has yet to be field tested in any congealed form, and yet the HP is promising there will be some kind of hardware available based on memristor in the next 4 years or so. Optimism at its highest. Like I said in my original post, the article was supposed to be less sobering.
