You're forgetting that the displays would also add mass, not just weight. You can't correct for that by adjusting just the spring/dampening system, you would need some kind of an active system, kind of like power steering.
The only way you're going to see latency cause large effects on performance is if you turn off the cache on your processor, or run some kind of program that always results in cache misses (which isn't at all realistic). The whole point of cache is to mask the effects of latency. For example, if you have a cache with a 98% hit rate (meaning that only 2% of all memory accesses need to wait on memory, which is fairly realistic for today's processors), then if you doubled your memory latency, your performance (average latency seen by the CPU) would only increase by 17%. If you could cut the latency in half, then your performance would only increase by 9%. In reality, there isn't that much variance between different latencies on similar types of memory. (I've assumed that the cache is 10 times faster than memory, which is pretty conservative).
Applying Amdahl's law here, if you want to reduce memory latency, you really want to increase your cache's hit rate or speed, for example by getting a processor with a larger cache or lower cache latency.
Slashdot Mirror
If the plates don't move, no work is done and you get no energy.
You're forgetting that the displays would also add mass, not just weight. You can't correct for that by adjusting just the spring/dampening system, you would need some kind of an active system, kind of like power steering.
The only way you're going to see latency cause large effects on performance is if you turn off the cache on your processor, or run some kind of program that always results in cache misses (which isn't at all realistic). The whole point of cache is to mask the effects of latency. For example, if you have a cache with a 98% hit rate (meaning that only 2% of all memory accesses need to wait on memory, which is fairly realistic for today's processors), then if you doubled your memory latency, your performance (average latency seen by the CPU) would only increase by 17%. If you could cut the latency in half, then your performance would only increase by 9%. In reality, there isn't that much variance between different latencies on similar types of memory. (I've assumed that the cache is 10 times faster than memory, which is pretty conservative).
Applying Amdahl's law here, if you want to reduce memory latency, you really want to increase your cache's hit rate or speed, for example by getting a processor with a larger cache or lower cache latency.