Wow.

[Dingo Jellybean]

This is a source taken from Reading Improvement magazine, and it lists an estimated timeline with a computer scientist and a few buisness firms.

1971: 4004 Processor
1972: 8008 Processor
1974: 8080 Processor
1978: 8086 Processor
1982: 286 Processor
1985: 385 Processor
1989: 486 Processor
1993: Pentium Processor
1997: Pentium II Processor
1999: Pentium III Processor
2000: Pentium 4 Processor
2006: 3.4GHz processor, 2GB RAM, 800GB hardrive - $1011
2011: 11GHz Processor, 16GB RAM, 16TB Hardrive - $740
2016: 37GHz processor, 131 GB RAM, 320TB Hardrive - $541
2021: 122GHz Processor, 1TB RAM, 8400GB Hardrive - $396
2026: 400GHz Processor, 8.4TB RAM, 128PB Hardrive - $289
2031: 1.3THz processor, 67TB RAM, 2.5EB Hardrive - $212

This is, I assume, all taking into account rates of predicted inflation(since this was done with a buisness analyst). So yeah...that's the relative price you can expect for computers like these...in the "near" future. Not surprising though, considering technology tends to have a "J-curve" like graph when plotted against efficiency over time.

For reference:

TB = Terabyte = 1000 Gigabytes
PB = Petabyte = 1000 Terabytes
EB = Exabyte = 1000 Petabytes

All I have to say is "HOLY SCHNIKES!"

[Erdrick Holmes]

:whoa:

[Nait]

That's a lot o powah.

[Psychotic]

I want me a 2031 thing.

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

So I should hold off on buy a new computer until abouit 2014, then, eh?

[Dingo Jellybean]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
So I should hold off on buy a new computer until abouit 2014, then, eh?

I try to buy a new computer every 5 years. My slow 233Mhz processor was $3000 when it came out...now I can get that for $80 refurbished with a monitor. But yeah...the longer the merrier.

[Rainecloud]

Great. Chip's Challenge is going to run so fast on that baby.

[Ultimate_Sandwich]

That's not factoring in time travel, when we'll be able to go ahead and steal technology from 3012.

*Dylan

[Dr Unne]

The numbers are misleading at best. There is a physical limit as to how fast current technology can go. Hertz is only a measure of frequency, i.e. how many CPU cycles there are per second. If you have a CPU ticking so fast that the electrical signals don't even have time to physically propagate throughout your circuitry, you're not going to be accomplshing anything.

There's also the question of the ISA (instruction set architecture). It's a common misconception that a 200 MHz CPU is twice as fast as a 100 MHz CPU. In fact the architecture could change so that assembler instructions that used to take 4 clock cycles now takes 6 clock cycles. And if the clock only goes twice as fast as before, that's only 150% increase instead of 200%. There usually is some gain in speed (or why bother producing the new CPUs at all), but pretty much never is the gain in speed proportional to the speed of the processor.

Also consider that computer technology has advanced in highly unpredictable ways throughout history. The computer sitting on my desk right now is more powerful than all the computers in the entire world around 1970 put together. It's possible that we might find some new technology that's so revolutionary that that timeline would actually underestimate things. Who knows.

[Peegee]

Agreed. Besides I have a 3.3 Ghz processor now (overclocked), so I guess I'm ahead of the technology curve?

And Dr Unne already said that technological advances can increase the projected curve. Though ultimately I doubt that a 1Thz processor with ram would cost only 200$. That a tad scary to me, and implies insane economic growths by then.

[Thunday Man]

Yarrr the U.S. Military already has computers as powerful as the future stuff. Like much much much faster than anything we can find on the market. I heard they have overclocked to 6GHz already. RELEASE YOUR STUFF SO I CAN BRING ALL THE BOYS TO MY YARD WITH MILKSHAKES.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Originally posted by Dr Unne
The numbers are misleading at best. There is a physical limit as to how fast current technology can go. Hertz is only a measure of frequency, i.e. how many CPU cycles there are per second. If you have a CPU ticking so fast that the electrical signals don't even have time to physically propagate throughout your circuitry, you're not going to be accomplshing anything.

There's also the question of the ISA (instruction set architecture). It's a common misconception that a 200 MHz CPU is twice as fast as a 100 MHz CPU. In fact the architecture could change so that assembler instructions that used to take 4 clock cycles now takes 6 clock cycles. And if the clock only goes twice as fast as before, that's only 150% increase instead of 200%. There usually is some gain in speed (or why bother producing the new CPUs at all), but pretty much never is the gain in speed proportional to the speed of the processor.

Also consider that computer technology has advanced in highly unpredictable ways throughout history. The computer sitting on my desk right now is more powerful than all the computers in the entire world around 1970 put together. It's possible that we might find some new technology that's so revolutionary that that timeline would actually underestimate things. Who knows.

I wouldn't be surprised, 10 years ago people predicted we wouldn't have 2GHz processors until 2006, yet we've had them for a few years now. The computers used at NASA are much more powerful than anything in the open market, but gold, platinum, and silver are much better conductors than the copper used in most computers today...problem is, they're too expensive. Though there is a physical limit, that limit really applies to the material that's used in the computers. Though gold, silver, and platinum are very expensive...thus they are not used in most computers.

But like I said, they're just predictions...but I wouldn't be surprised by it. Technology has always followed a j-curve graph and I doubt I would see a change in that.

[Montoya]

Although all that tchnology would be nice, I can't find much use for them, for me at least. I'm doing fine with my laptop now.

[bennator]

Technology has always followed a j-curve graph and I doubt I would see a change in that.

The intial growth for many things <i>is</i> a J-shaped, or exponential curve, and can accurately be used to measure initial growth.

However, the problem is, is that such a level of growth is usually unsustainable. Take a colony of bacteria (classic example). Initially the growth will be J-shaped as 2 divide to 4 to 8, to 16...etc. However, as they fill their habitat, growth slows down as food is limited, space is limited, no room for waste, etc. So, while looking at the initial growth, it looks J-Shaped, but after a long time, it is acutally S-shaped, or a <u>logistics</u> model</i>.

There is every reason to assume that technology will have to eventually conform to a logistics model. The physical constraints of a computer system dictate it at some point (speed of light, size of particles in the semi-conductor, etc.). While I don't think we are reaching that point now, or in the next few years, it <i>will</i> happen, and growth will slow down, and the faster the growth now, the sooner those constraints are reached. So, I don't think I'll believe the predictions for 2031 and the like.

<b>Edit: Closing open underline tags would be a good thing, no?</b>

[Enoki]

*saves $212, and anxiously awaits 2031*