computing efficiency

@bzogramm... (Charles Rosenbau...) — 10h Physics tells you how to compute optimally. If you want to maximize raw compute/watt, you want to move particles as slowly as possible. Kinetic energy scales with the square of speed, so 1/10th the velocity means 1/100th the energy. Maybe you only get 1/10th of the work done, but the efficiency boost is far bigger. Now if you're using something light and fast like an electron, you're going to have a bad time because just about anything can knock that electron onto a different path. Fighting noise gets hard, so if you're minimizing speed, more mass helps. Computers move electrons around at GHz speeds. The brain moves ions around at <1 kHz, and is thousands of times more efficient. @mech2code (Matt) — 11h Please consult the charts [Embedded charts: left chart "Power Density (W/cm²) vs Clock Frequency (Hz)" scatter of processor generations (4004, 8086, 80286, 80386, 80486, Pentium, Pentium II/III/Pro, AMD K5/K6/K7/K8, POWER2/3/4/5, Itanium2, Ivy Bridge, Cell, etc.) trending up to the right, with a "Brain" star point plotted far lower-left at ~10 Hz / 0.01 W/cm² (with cartoon face doodles added). Right chart: "40 Years of Microprocessor Trend Data" 1980–2020, plotting Transistors (thousands), Single-Thread Performance (SpecInt), Frequency (MHz), Typical Power (Watts), Number of Logical Cores, with "Moore's Law" trend line labeled in red, cut off on the right edge]