[Daniel_Newby]

Nothing needs gigabit rates of random numbers.

Consider a Monte Carlo algorithm on a 2 GHz processor, with a 50 instruction cycle inner loop, using a 64 bit random value per loop: it needs 2.5 Gb/sec of random bits.

[tedunangst]

There's no need for the bits to be truly random. In fact, if you ever want anyone to replicate your simulation, you'll need to provide them with the prng algorithm and seed used.

[ghshephard]

Perhaps this should be better written as "Nothing needs gigabit rates of _cryptographically strong_ random numbers."

Using a megabit rates of cryptographically strong random numbers to seed a PRNG would be fine for most purposes.

Can anyone think of a reason why you would want/use gigabit rates of truly random numbers instead of using a slower rate to see a PRNG?

[marshray]

Perhaps this should be better written as "Nothing needs gigabit rates of _cryptographically strong_ random numbers."

Yes that's what I meant to say. I probably didn't realize the discussion had widened to include insecure number generation.

[algorias]

>Using a megabit rates of cryptographically strong random numbers to seed a PRNG would be fine for most purposes.

And that's exactly what the hardware described in the article does for you.

[Daniel_Newby]

True. Although the new Intel system is not cryptographically secure.

Gigabit true random numbers could be used to modulate a jam-resistant radar signal. That makes it difficult for an opponent to use active electronics to cloak their target, even in principle. However actual systems would use dedicated hardware, not an Intel chip.

The profoundly paranoid could interleave true random bits with their data bits before encrypting (discard them on receipt). Pattern analysis would become much more difficult.