(I saw this post on Hacker News, the community least likely to see the total irony in their excitement over this announcement.)
Show this thread
AMD EPYC Review: 2x 64-Core Benchmarked https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen … But it doesn't matter because all software runs 1000x too slow. Stop pretending like we care how fast computers are, or that this means anything except burning more power and taxing the environment. kthx bye.
-
-
-
New rule: If you "program" "software" in a language where floating-point numbers are strings, you don't get any more computers, ever.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
To say this in a positive way: you already have a computer that is tremendously faster than however fast you think the new AMD chip is. And it’s free, because you already have it.
Show this thread - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Software runs too slow, yes. Computers tax environment, yes. But do some people actually care that their computers are faster? Yes. They are not pretending. I get why you are angry but I don't get why you think people pretend. There's no conspiracy.
-
I’m not angry, just incredulous. The computers aren’t getting faster, do you understand that this is my point?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm a web developer. From a practical perspective, what should I do about this waste? Compiling PHP to C, or whatever it is that Facebook does, seems out of reach for me.
-
I believe that while you don't go too crazy on the backend and you use as little Javascript as possible in the front-end you are already faster than 80% of modern websites. Web's main problem is using JS frameworks and making everything a SPA when it wasn't necessary.
-
I totally agree, and I follow those principles. But he's talking a 1000x performance increase. Being judicial about frameworks isn't getting close to that.
-
Hey, if you can only speed up 10x, that is still pretty good compared to everyone else.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Newer chip processes result in chips with lower power consumption for the same performance. It's possible to save power this way if the same money isn't used to buy more chips.
-
This has never been how it worked in the past; why would it start now?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Is there an inverse to Moore’s Law? That software performance degrades 2x every 18-24 months? The most resource hungry apps on my computer now basically existed in the 90s and ran much better from a purely software standpoint. mIRC > Slack. Navigator > Chrome.
-
There are names for that, yes. “Wirth’s law” and “Andy and Bill’s law”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
1000x too slow? I'm intrigued. Please elaborate
-
-
Did you just refer me to a *two hour* video critiquing inefficiency?
-
ill simply respond to this with a well meant fk you
-
Respect
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.