In light of some of the recent articles about building cheap/free super comptuers with armies of cheap low power computers, this seems like an great pontential application for these chips.
You can just swap out individual chips as you upgrade the system. Plus, the cluster would be much MORE compact since you don't need big cases/motherboards. You could run thousands of nodes within a single cooling cabinet.
It looks like these chips at at least 100MIPS processors which puts them on par with 80Mhz Pentiums. About the same order of magnitude of processor the recent article was about.
I agree, the impression I get from the ndustry to day is that artwork done with computers are not considered "fine art." Ineed it that term itself "fine art" that is vague and difficult to define. i.e. what does "fine art" mean to you and what does it mean to somone else.
I believe, that the issue of technology and where that is incorporated into the definition does not sit well with most people and how much technology must the be (or not be) before it is no longer a "fine art".
I have met people that argue photography is not a "fine art" because the medium is not tanigble and not maleiable by hand. Thus, sculpting and painting is considered "fine art".
At the othe end of the spectrum, is Shrek considered "fine art"? Most peop would probably say no, from a gut reaction but can't provide a satisfactory explaination when asked why. My guess is that people look poorly upon the commericalism and the technology behind the production.
Since clasisscal critics of art do not know how to catagorize computer aided artwork, many have create a new genre of work called "digial media", which includes interactive, still, and animated artwork.
Re:Not so great (addition)
on
3D w/o Goggles
·
· Score: 1
Yup, upon closer inspection, this is indeed the same product. This has been my token product for lame ideas that should never have gotten as far as it did. And if this can make it this far, image have far a truely good idea can go.
I think I remember seeing these on display at Siggraph 2000. They are pretty disappointing. Basically it's just two LCD layers about an inch apart. So, you do get "depth" but it's hardly realistic,but really just a cheap hack. It's not a true z-depth display.
I don't quite understand all of these comments about faster boot times and benchmarks that are purely 3D graphics.
Aren't boot times slowed down by poor task managment, caching, and swapping issues? Does having a really fast processor help this by much? I remember I did a test boot on a very old Macintosh of mine where I was able to a slim down system into RAM and boot from that. It took 7 seconds from pushing the power button to using my applications. That was an old system, but an old processor to. But in general, long boot times don't seem to be tied to CPU speed so much as drive speed and multitask management.
Also if you look at the benchmarks, it mostly 3D graphics tests. I don't understand the point of running these tests because it's 90% dependent on the graphics card or CPU. The only test that really yielded useful numbers were the Dryhstone MIPs and Whetstone MFLOPs benchmarks.
Why aren't these number the one's people care about? Why run 3D graphics tests? How about running raytracing tests, or decryption algorithms? That's what I would like to see. Somethign that's actually CPU dependent.
Game speeds are cool. But if you want faster frames rates, buy a better graphics card. Don't overclock your CPU.
Slashdot Mirror
In light of some of the recent articles about building cheap/free super comptuers with armies of cheap low power computers, this seems like an great pontential application for these chips.
You can just swap out individual chips as you upgrade the system. Plus, the cluster would be much MORE compact since you don't need big cases/motherboards. You could run thousands of nodes within a single cooling cabinet.
It looks like these chips at at least 100MIPS processors which puts them on par with 80Mhz Pentiums. About the same order of magnitude of processor the recent article was about.
I agree, the impression I get from the ndustry to day is that artwork done with computers are not considered "fine art." Ineed it that term itself "fine art" that is vague and difficult to define. i.e. what does "fine art" mean to you and what does it mean to somone else.
I believe, that the issue of technology and where that is incorporated into the definition does not sit well with most people and how much technology must the be (or not be) before it is no longer a "fine art".
I have met people that argue photography is not a "fine art" because the medium is not tanigble and not maleiable by hand. Thus, sculpting and painting is considered "fine art".
At the othe end of the spectrum, is Shrek considered "fine art"? Most peop would probably say no, from a gut reaction but can't provide a satisfactory explaination when asked why. My guess is that people look poorly upon the commericalism and the technology behind the production.
Since clasisscal critics of art do not know how to catagorize computer aided artwork, many have create a new genre of work called "digial media", which includes interactive, still, and animated artwork.
Yup, upon closer inspection, this is indeed the same product. This has been my token product for lame ideas that should never have gotten as far as it did. And if this can make it this far, image have far a truely good idea can go.
I think I remember seeing these on display at Siggraph 2000. They are pretty disappointing. Basically it's just two LCD layers about an inch apart. So, you do get "depth" but it's hardly realistic,but really just a cheap hack. It's not a true z-depth display.
I don't quite understand all of these comments about faster boot times and benchmarks that are purely 3D graphics.
Aren't boot times slowed down by poor task managment, caching, and swapping issues? Does having a really fast processor help this by much? I remember I did a test boot on a very old Macintosh of mine where I was able to a slim down system into RAM and boot from that. It took 7 seconds from pushing the power button to using my applications. That was an old system, but an old processor to. But in general, long boot times don't seem to be tied to CPU speed so much as drive speed and multitask management.
Also if you look at the benchmarks, it mostly 3D graphics tests. I don't understand the point of running these tests because it's 90% dependent on the graphics card or CPU. The only test that really yielded useful numbers were the Dryhstone MIPs and Whetstone MFLOPs benchmarks.
Why aren't these number the one's people care about? Why run 3D graphics tests? How about running raytracing tests, or decryption algorithms? That's what I would like to see. Somethign that's actually CPU dependent.
Game speeds are cool. But if you want faster frames rates, buy a better graphics card. Don't overclock your CPU.