Yeah, bad NikiTo! Differing perception of reality from the norm is no excuse to treat other people badly by intention and for fun! Shame, shame, shame on you!

Green_Baron said:

@nikito Don't be so dismissive and personal. Your claims are in need citation (not just that I won't get far ;-)). The record was broken in 2012 by a v8, and again in 2018 by a very old car with two v8s.

And still: would you switch off all cores - 1 just to proove you're not faster ?

Why would i disable 3 cores of a Quad CPU? Why?!

It makes no sense!!

I need a single core CPU clocked 4 times higher to compare it to a low clocked Quad CPU.
Why to disable slow cores, part of a pack of more slow cores to prove it is slower. It makes no sense. Ofc it will be slower. It is clocked like a turtle. Your last two comments make no sense.

Don't be so personal on me! You are so focused on contradicting me, you forgot to think.

I will not spend half an hour to find a quote in google enough respectable as for you to admit it. You would simply not accept my quotes for no reason. I am not going to google because you say so.

You playing games now, and i am googling for you?… why how that?

NikiTo said:

Green_Baron said:

@nikito Don't be so dismissive and personal. Your claims are in need citation (not just that I won't get far ;-)). The record was broken in 2012 by a v8, and again in 2018 by a very old car with two v8s.

And still: would you switch off all cores - 1 just to proove you're not faster ?

Why would i disable 3 cores of a Quad CPU? Why?!

Because you don't cheat ? You said multiple cores are cheating.

It makes no sense!!

Exactly.

I need a single core CPU clocked 4 times higher to compare it to a low clocked Quad CPU.

Upthread you said that multiple cores were not just a multiplication of the performace per core. What is it now ?

Don't be so personal on me! You are so focused on contradicting me, you forgot to think.

If you say so …

I will not spend half an hour to find a quote in google enough respectable as for you to admit it. You would simply not accept my quotes for no reason. I am not going to google because you say so.

Aww. That does not make it easy. I would expect in a fruitful discussion that claims are either not that far from common sense or, if they are, are underlain with some sort of reasonable background. And, in contrary, i will readily and humbly accept evidence when it is shown me.

You playing games now, and i am googling for you?… why how that?

It is none of your business, but if you're interested, i am not playing right now. I am debugging my 2d gui overlay. You would not search for me, in contrary …

Over and out

a friendly Green Baron

Green_Baron said:
Upthread you said that multiple cores were not just a multiplication of the performace per core. What is it now ?

This is exactly what i need. The best example and comparison. Example of a car that will not even work if you remove 11 cylinders form it is a very bad example. Your example fits nowhere.

I'm out too.

Sincerely, NikiTo.

fleabay said:
“In October 2019, Google made a big announcement. It announced its 53-qubit quantum computer named Sycamore had achieved ‘quantum supremacy.’ That’s when quantum computers can complete tasks exponentially more quickly than their classical counterparts. In this case, Google said its quantum machine completed a task in 200 seconds that would have taken the world’s most powerful computer 10,000 years to complete.”

It is no proof yet. We still need to wait 10,000 years minus 200 seconds so we can verify if the result of quantum computer is correct at all.

Until then it is a Schroedinger result. Could be right. Could be wrong. Or both. But most probably neither.

There is a wager on the result. I put all my money on 42.

Quantum Computers are booting, they do something, but they are full of errors. They need to run the same algorithm various times and average the result. Still scientists can not explain why the waves interact the way they do.

I am up to date with real science, but not with marketing.

CPUs could stay with us for many decades…

I personally tend to believe that if they master Quantum Computers, there will be a way to play games on it. Right now Quantum Computers are considered to be good for only small range of tasks. But in the future, this surely will change, to give us a completely quantum-based computer that can multitask anything, and we can get rid of the CPUs the way we know them nowadays.

JoeJ said:
It is no proof yet. We still need to wait 10,000 years minus 200 seconds so we can verify if the result of quantum computer is correct at all.

You make a very valid clever point there. Maybe some math guru can test the result somehow. The same way a short hash proves/confirms large amounts of data. But this would not work for every 10,000-years-problem if it works at all.

Can't hide my brilliance even when i'm trolling, yes.