And of course when this becomes consumer viable video games will be 50 terabytes large and download speeds will remain the same.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33717776]And of course when this becomes consumer viable video games will be 50 terabytes large and download speeds will remain the same.[/QUOTE]
I have a difficult time thinking that video games will ever require that much storage space, but I also distinctly remember thinking in the 90s that video games would never need to be larger than a gigabyte.
God damn technology progresses fast.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;33717799]I have a difficult time thinking that video games will ever require that much storage space, but I also distinctly remember thinking in the 90s that video games would never need to be larger than a gigabyte.
God damn technology progresses fast.[/QUOTE]
When more and more resources are available developers will use them. Things don't need to be as compressed and more original quality can be kept.
A good example of this is the PS3 and bluray. Nothing had to be compressed since the disk had ample space and it even allowed developers to have high-demand resources at more then once place on the disc which helps decrease read times.
100,000BaseT :v:
[sp]impossible over twisted pair so don't get your hopes up[/sp]
My HDD isn't even that fast.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33718427]My HDD isn't even that fast.[/QUOTE]
That's a really fair point, but I'm sure there will be something faster than an SSD but as stable as HDD in the near future.
Wouldn't you need the mother of all raid arrays to get hdd/ssd transfer speeds like that?
[QUOTE=HapticPony;33718574]That's a really fair point, but I'm sure there will be something faster than an SSD but as stable as HDD in the near future.[/QUOTE]
I doubt you'll be seeing speeds this ridiculous plumbed straight into the back of your desktop for a fair while. Speeds like this are great for backbone networks, like datacenter rings or SAN connections. You'd probably still use 10GigE or similar for a LAN.
[QUOTE=Mattz333;33718121]
A good example of this is the PS3 and bluray. Nothing had to be compressed since the disk had ample space and it even allowed developers to have high-demand resources at more then once place on the disc which helps decrease read times.[/QUOTE]
and the only effect this had was mgs4 taking 7 hours to install
I swear to god if they replace areas that already have super fast internet with this new stuff I'm gonna go mental. Our area has been on near dial up speeds for years while other areas get fibre optics.
[QUOTE=HapticPony;33718574]That's a really fair point, but I'm sure there will be something faster than an SSD but as stable as HDD in the near future.[/QUOTE]
What? Unless you mean stable as in the pricing, an SSD is more stable than a HDD because the HDD has mechanical moving parts
And here I'll be still stuck on 1.5 Mb download.
I call bullshit, the internet backbone is accommodated to support terabytes on terabytes of information though the fiber optics. For example, the TAT-14 cable that runs under the Atlantic is designed to transfer about 3.2 Tbit/s of information.
Europe is designed to transfer even more Tbit/s of information. I mean, some backbone routers are designed to accommodate about 14 Tbit/s of info.
God damn.. My highest download speed was 2Gbps i dont know how i managed that i even had a screenshot but it was like 3-4 years ago...
[QUOTE=Adarrek;33720674]God damn.. My highest download speed was 2Gbps i dont know how i managed that i even had a screenshot but it was like 3-4 years ago...[/QUOTE]
You were getting 250MB/s? Sounds like bullshit to me.
[QUOTE=Adarrek;33720674]God damn.. My highest download speed was 2Gbps i dont know how i managed that i even had a screenshot but it was like 3-4 years ago...[/QUOTE]
Was more than likely a glitch in whatever speed test you used. Or you're an idiot and mistook the M as a G.
And standard local networks are still only 1Gbps. Heck, I am on a 100 Mbps network.
186GBps? 250gig Monthly cap
[QUOTE=GetBent;33719822]And here I'll be still stuck on 1.5 Mb download.[/QUOTE]
Try 200 kb/s.
[QUOTE=Mr.T;33720223]I call bullshit, the internet backbone is accommodated to support terabytes on terabytes of information though the fiber optics. For example, the TAT-14 cable that runs under the Atlantic is designed to transfer about 3.2 Tbit/s of information.
Europe is designed to transfer even more Tbit/s of information. I mean, some backbone routers are designed to accommodate about 14 Tbit/s of info.[/QUOTE]You misunderstood that.
It's the total data / second, not the actual speeds :v:
[editline]14th December 2011[/editline]
As in all users on the connection
[editline]14th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GetBent;33719822]And here I'll be still stuck on 1.5 Mb download.[/QUOTE]Gotta love LTE :v:
50 Mbps down and 25 up :dance:
Sort of misleading article
The world record - unless it's broken - is a little more than 10 TBit/s
[QUOTE=Within;33722671]Sort of misleading article
The world record - unless it's broken - is a little more than 10 TBit/s[/QUOTE]
The networking world record is now 186Gbit/s. However, in order to process data at 186Gbit/s, you need insane hard disks, an insane CPU, and insane amounts of RAM (For caching)
[editline]14th December 2011[/editline]
To put it in perspective the best retail HD's you can get have a transfer of around 4gbit/s, so your IO would cap the bandwidth received to that.
[QUOTE=hamberglar;33722602]Try 200 kb/s.[/QUOTE]
You misunderstood, 1.5 megabit. That's about 180 kB/s.
[QUOTE=GetBent;33722972]You misunderstood, 1.5 megabit. That's about 180 kB/s.[/QUOTE]
Which is damn close to 200
Wouldn't we run into problems at the computer's end? For example, my old computer could only have a connection up to 100mbs, so even if you had a faster connection plugged in it would still only be 100mbs.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;33722912]The networking world record is now 186Gbit/s. However, in order to process data at 186Gbit/s, you need insane hard disks, an insane CPU, and insane amounts of RAM (For caching)
[editline]14th December 2011[/editline]
To put it in perspective the best retail HD's you can get have a transfer of around 4gbit/s, so your IO would cap the bandwidth received to that.[/QUOTE]
I welcome the day my internet outpaces my hard drive.
And I can't fucking wait for it to outpace PCIe 16x 3.0
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;33717799]I have a difficult time thinking that video games will ever require that much storage space, but I also distinctly remember thinking in the 90s that video games would never need to be larger than a gigabyte.
God damn technology progresses fast.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure games based on that "infinite detail" thing would take up quite a bit of space...
They really do not want people who don't know what a Gigabyte or Terabyte to get a loose grasp around what it is. They never use one distribution format as reference twice.
Keep jumping in between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. One of them is a dead format.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.