Laptop Super Computer

BeerCheeze · Posted: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:28:26 Post Subject:

Knight... look at the screen shot, it say 1TB of RAM. That means XP is seeing WELL over the 64GB MAX LIMIT!

Also, an almost 7 Ghz CPU??? In a LAPTOP???? Going to have to call BS on this as well.

I am NOT buying this. Until I can see it myself, or get a hands on report from a RELIABLE website, This is BSWare.

HackaX0rus · Posted: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:52:12 Post Subject:

I too call shens on the atom chip corp...

CHollman82 · Rated R Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 73

That is BS... however, the 64bit version of WinXP and Vista can address 18,446,744 Terabytes...or, 18 Zettabytes. So, if the laptop is running a 64bit OS then that argument is invalid.

Some more info for anyone that cares:

The reason that 32bit OS's can only address 4gb is because the largest number that can be represented by 32bits is 2^32, which is 4,294,967,296 bytes. Divide by 1024 to get 4,194,304 kilobytes. Divide by 1024 again to get 4,096 Megabytes. Divide by 1024 one more time and you get exactly 4 Gigabytes.

You may be asking why I started at bytes instead of bits but thats because the smallest addressable unit of memory is 1 byte, individual bits cannot be addressed (read/written) by themselves, which is a result of the design of the modern IO controllers

A 64bit OS can address 2^64, which equals 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes.... 18.446 Zettabytes.

Here is the full sequence of the naming convention:
Bytes, Kilobytes, Megabytes, Gigabytes, Terabytes, Petabytes, Exabytes, Zettabytes, Yottabytes, Harpibytes, Grouchibytes, Zeppibytes, Gummibytes, Chicibytes.

Anything larger than a Chicibyte has not been named yet and probably won't have to be for thousands of years.

BeerCheeze · Posted: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:45:32 Post Subject:

CHollman... but the screen shot is XP x32, with 1TB of RAM.

CHollman82 · Rated R Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 73

Yeah I know, it is bullcrap, I wasn't arguing with you. Just saying that with XP64 it would be possible... not with current hardware though. Even the quad opteron board I posted in the other thread only supports 64gb of system memory....

Spire · Posted: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:08:34 Post Subject:

jake_johnson · Posted: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:23:42 Post Subject:

I cant wait to see if this is a BUST! It can be true. I just dont believe it. I want to. I want to believe it so f#*@ing bad. Because if it is true that means, well um, Super computer in my computer? PLEASE!

thePMG · Rated XXX Joined: 24 Apr 2004 Posts: 393 Location: Germany

http://atomchip.com/db4/00366/atomchip.com/_uimages/CleanRoomEnter.jpg

WTF is going on in this picture?

BeerCheeze · Posted: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 23:40:13 Post Subject:

Apparently they are hanging up a platic crab to warn people.....

Confused

CHollman82 · Rated R Joined: 30 Sep 2005 Posts: 73

Here's some more info. Atom Chip Lab

That lends some more credibility to it in my opinion. However I still feel that the whole thing is still theoretical at best and I belive the pictures posted on that first page are mock ups and photochoped. I don't like to discredit things right off the bat but that seemed like too much of a leap from what we have now. Normally things tend to progress steadily not leap ahead (like going from 1gb of memory in most systems to 1tb). However, if you think about it as we reach the limits of what we can do with modern architecture I feel that we really will experience a jump like this as IC's and storage mediums are redesigned using new technologies. This will happen eventaully I just don't think we are as close to it as those screenshots would lead you to believe.