3 ms·
But you don't have more CPU cycles per second. And the software you use takes several times as much resources to let you do... basically all the same things you
by jfrunyon 5y ago
But you don't have more CPU cycles per second. And the software you use takes several times as much resources to let you do... basically all the same things you could do a couple decades ago.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoI couldn't do physically modelled audio synthesis in real time on ANY processor of that era. Now I can do a ton of it, though not enough to represent a full orchestra. And I could not compile 600k lines of C++ in 4 minutes on any processor of that era. Now I can. The fact that desktop environments have gotten "heavy" has essentially zero impact on the compute-heavy tasks that are important to me. If I was a video editor (I'm not), the same "progress" would apply there too.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kitsunesoba 5y agoI mean, kinda, but for many types of work the volume and quality of what can be handled by even a consumer machine has improved immeasurably. A 13” MacBook Air today is far better at audio/video authoring, 3D, and code compilation among other things than a 90s machine that’s highly specialized at just one of those things. A modern workstation tower is practically an entire room of prohibitively expensive 90s workstations plus a render farm in one box, which is pretty amazing. Of course there’s some things that modern tech really isn’t better at. Is a Ryzen 5950X RTX 3090 tower any better than a Dell Dimension 4100 running Word 2000 or even a Mac Plus running MacWrite for writing a novel? Probably not, but people aren’t buying top end machines for those tasks, and some stick to their old machines where they can.