[maerF0x0]

https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/a/1395

Explains it better than I could in a HN reply.

Assuming our desired work to be done continues to grow, faster core speed* will eventually matter.

* technically, net instructions per second after prediction/compute ahead etc

[slver]

Honestly that's a bit too abstract to make sense of.

As a programmer to another, I'd rather ask... what's one example of a problem we have today that needs faster linear performance than our best chips (not in a nice-to-have way but in a must-have way).

I'd rule out all casual computing like home PCs, smartphones, and so on, because honestly we've been there for years already.

Also due to decades of bias we have serialized code in our programs that doesn't have to be serial, just because that's "normal" and because it's deemed easier. Also we have a huge untapped potential of better performance by being more data-oriented. None of this requires faster hardware. It doesn't even require new hardware.

But anyway, I'm open to examples.

[dilippkumar]

> I'd rule out all casual computing like home PCs, smartphones, and so on, because honestly we've been there for years already.

Casual computing can definitely be a lot better than where we are today[0][1].

The software business has moved to a place where it’s not really practical to program bare metal silicon in assembly to get screaming fast performance. We write software on several layers of abstraction, each of which consumes a ton of compute capacity.

We have resigned to live with 100ms latencies in our daily computing. This is us giving up on the idea of fast computers. It should not be confused with actually having a computer where all interactions are sub 10ms (less than 1 frame refresh period at 90fps).

[0]. https://danluu.com/input-lag/

[1]. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261148-modern-computer...