42 ms·
It might not just be “faster”. It could also be “better” (obtaining more accurate results than you otherwise could), or “cheaper” (obtaining results with less m
by reikonomusha 8y ago
It might not just be “faster”. It could also be “better” (obtaining more accurate results than you otherwise could), or “cheaper” (obtaining results with less money, less memory, less electricity, ...). Power consumption, for instance, is a huge factor in the design of modern supercomputers and data centers. If you can do useful tasks 50% slower but using 5% of the energy you’d consume with a “full speed” solution, I’d say that’s a win.