8 ms·

Maybe you missed the memo, but everything old is new again: * We are slowly but definitely moving towards a hub-and-spoke, mainframe-and-terminal topology agai

Maybe you missed the memo, but everything old is new again: * We are slowly but definitely moving towards a hub-and-spoke, mainframe-and-terminal topology again. Processing is being centralized in servers and datacenters again (eg: "AI", game streaming, video and audio streaming, cloud storage, etc.), accessed from terminals again with low power consumption hardware to extend battery life, reduce manufacturing costs, and reduce consumer power use. * Powerful consumer (and prosumer/enthusiast) hardware is becoming economically unviable again (discrete GPUs particularly), politically unfavorable (inefficient and high power consumption), and socially unfashionable (RGB and "gamer" aesthetic), further spurring the mainframe-and-terminal topology above. * Traditionally powerful and versatile consumer (and prosumer/enthusiast) software is becoming commercially unviable and software vendors are realigning their revenue streams to adapt and survive in an increasingly cutthroat market, further spurring the mainframe-and-terminal topology above. If you're into computing as a hobby, it might be prudent to find a new hobby soon.

Aerbil313 3y ago
Thanks for your insight. I’ll sit and think on this.
pleoxy 3y ago
You can adopt a centralized system. And it's fashionable to do so. Lots of people here and other places advocate doing everything you can on the server. But it's not required. Additionally, there are plenty of good incentives not to, including cost. Client CPUs are fast, free to use, and don't require a high latency network hop. Local ram, disk, and network transfer are also available in abundance. You can totally reverse the architecture where the client is doing the heavy lifting and provide the user a good experience. Intel CPUs are inefficient when pegged, but more efficient at idle. On AMD your using the same cores the cloud is. Without the massive IO attached on the server side the client CPUs are more efficient for a unit of work. Apple is more efficient than the PC side presently, and Qualcomm is entering the fray and appears to be quite efficient. So I'm really not certain where you're efficiency claim about client hardware comes from. All that hardware is just sitting there and sales vary, but they are not cratering for high performance local compute. You have a point about GPUs, but only a very few very specialized applications need those.

Aerbil313 3y ago

Thanks for your insight. I’ll sit and think on this.

pleoxy 3y ago

You can adopt a centralized system. And it's fashionable to do so. Lots of people here and other places advocate doing everything you can on the server. But it's not required. Additionally, there are plenty of good incentives not to, including cost. Client CPUs are fast, free to use, and don't require a high latency network hop. Local ram, disk, and network transfer are also available in abundance. You can totally reverse the architecture where the client is doing the heavy lifting and provide the user a good experience. Intel CPUs are inefficient when pegged, but more efficient at idle. On AMD your using the same cores the cloud is. Without the massive IO attached on the server side the client CPUs are more efficient for a unit of work. Apple is more efficient than the PC side presently, and Qualcomm is entering the fray and appears to be quite efficient. So I'm really not certain where you're efficiency claim about client hardware comes from. All that hardware is just sitting there and sales vary, but they are not cratering for high performance local compute. You have a point about GPUs, but only a very few very specialized applications need those.