On 5/26/2025 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:On 5/26/2025 3:40 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote:On 5/26/2025 3:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:On 5/26/2025 2:15 PM, Stephen Fuld wrote:On 5/26/2025 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:On 5/26/2025 1:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:On 5/26/2025 6:06 AM, Michael S wrote:On Mon, 26 May 2025 06:46:01 GMT
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes:Discs probably are less competitive than
motherboards,
I expect them to be just as competetive as motherboards, at
least in
the past. The fact that there are only 2-3 surviving HDD
manufacturers indicates intense competition in the past,
possible less
today.
but I would expect adding 256 MB to lead to 1
dollar or more increase of cost.
What makes you think so. The DRAM chips on DDR4 DIMMs today hold
512MB (x8->4GB DIMM) up to 2GB (x16->32GB DIMM). There are 2GB
DDR3
DIMMs (using 256MB chips), but they do not cost less than 4GB DDR3
DIMMs. Choosing a DRAM cache of 256MB rather than 512MB is
unlikely
to save even one cent.
- anton
You are projecting computer memory prices on very different market.
The memory used for HD cache is likely an individual memory chip
or two
chips and likely several generation older than devices used in
computer
DIMMs. I would expect something like x16 DDR3. Looking for
price of
such devices on Mauser I see following figures:
1 Gbit - $2.10
2 Gbit - $2.60
4 Gbit - $2.90
So, even assuming that disk manufacturer pays 1.5x to 2x less
than what
we see on Mauser, there exists measurable difference between 128,
256
and 512 MB. The difference is smaller than suggested by Waldek
but much
bigger than suggested by yourself.
I wonder if a HDD can have several multi-core processors on them,
where adding a new drive means you get not only more storage, but
more CPU's in the system like a NUMA machine? For some reason, the
AI's have a lot of "fun" when I talk to it about such
things... ;^) lol.
Or even, have some ram on there, say a couple of gigs. So, adding a
new drive gives you more storage, more memory, and more cpus?
The CPU on the drive is not user programmable, and is almost
certainly not the same ISA as the "main" CPU in the system.
Can it be?
Which, user programmable or same ISA?
That's a hard one. Perhaps a special ISA for the bridge, but then again,
it might be the same ISA as multiple multi-core chips on the HDD.
No disk vendor would allow user programmability as it would void any
warranty, possibly corrupt data, etc. As for same ISA, many years
ago, one vendor used an 80186, but today, any current X86 would be
overkill and too expensive for the job.
Ahh, well, then the same company that made the CPU's, GPU's, would be
the same company that made these "special" HDD's? Pie in the sky,
version 42... ;^) lol. Sorry.
Almost akin to the SPU on playstation. Except, each SPU ha ahard drive, many cpus, cores, threads, with dram and al that fun
shit? Or too wacky? Or stupid in a sense? Well, how stupid on a scale
from 0 to 1? ;^)
No comment. :-)
LOL!!! However, this had, iirc, PPC for motherboard and a special vector
language for the SPU's?
I think some games for the older Playstation did not even use the SPU's?
They just ran on the PPC's? Too hard to program for? DMA for feeding the
SPU's data?
The SPU’s were vector engines used for 3D transforms, the GPU was just a a
blit engine with no transform capabilities.
The main CPU was too slow for to do all the transformations and ship a
usable game that would pass Sony certification.
You could do a lot more with the SPU vector engines if you rewrote your
code, cloth physics, particles, etc, this is what the developers were
talking about.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.