Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Mar 2010 13:00 UTC, submitted by Jim Lynch
Permalink for comment 414291
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
I did miss the joke.
I agree and disagree. If something is so complex that it might change, or just the nature of the operation might change then I agree, it belongs in software. But if you can manage to move those eternal algorithms to the die then why not? Especially given the constant shrinking of the palette... sooner or later we will be cramming transistors into cellular sized spaces. If we have the ability to cram so much into so little space, would it really be wasting space to add functionality? Sure it could be in some form factors, but in general computing?
But I see your point. Faster, cleaner pipelines enable complex software to run faster. I just think at some point the trend will reverse itself and "smarter" hardware is going to make a comeback.