MiG- Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 it still wont play games even with 2x intel "extreme" graphics cards. the laptop is useless lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clide Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 It certainly would have cost a fortune just to obtain some of those items they have listed. How is it possible to get almost 2 terrabytes of data onto a laptop, being that sleek.. seems like a hoax to me even with costs to enter the CES. 586487340[/snapback] I think their patents explain how that is possible, not that I can understand them, but it's using a completely different kind of storage than hard-drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeR Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 guys it requres a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to run the Laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiG- Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 :( :blink: :devil: :no: :rolleyes: :whistle: :woot: :shifty: :x :sleep: :p :o :happy: :happy: :huh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted September 6, 2005 Global Moderator Share Posted September 6, 2005 the price... oh god what will the price be... but this is gonna outsell everything if its affordable... better not be like $10,000 LOL awesome technology.. i see we just go from 1.1, 1.2, 1.3... 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 6.8Ghz... nice pattern jump :p i'd love to use this bad boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzachattack2 Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Think about it, if a game aint coded for it then it wont use it, but wat about when it is, think about that.so how come the xbox 360 has 3 cores, for the sake, nah i dont think so, more cores is better, miles better, the technology needs catering for thats all. 586487339[/snapback] The xbox 360 has 3 cores because the games for the xbox 360 will be programmed to run on three cores. More than one processing core is a relatively new fad in the computer industry. Thus most games were programmed to run a single thread. Im sure in the near future we will see most of our popular games reprogrammed to be multi-threaded(such as the unreale 3ngine), however it may be a long transition (same with win32-winfx, 32bit-64bit, etc). So idealy, when most of our games in the future are multi-threaded, then yes it would be better to run the minmum amount of cores/processors, however since almost all of our current games are still single-threaded, and most will remain that way for a while, more-cores will not always mean better performance than faster core frequency for gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sufikasih Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 (edited) I can easily believe a 6.8GHz CPU. I can *barely* believe a 6.8GHz CPU in such a dense heat environment. I can NOT believe a System Properties window that says 1TB RAM, on an OS that had a 4GB on a 32 bit platform or 128GB on a 64 bit platform RAM limitation last time I checked...EDIT: Here is some really big text to make my comment stand out. Windows XP would not run 1TB of RAM. It's FAKE. 586486612[/snapback] the techo is real. there will be minimum heat for optical based system. the techo of electron traveling via metal is already 400 years. its now where techo change. even intel and amd is working on it. AND STILL WORKING on it. but this kinda fake for this yea. Edited September 6, 2005 by sufikasih Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clide Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 the price... oh god what will the price be... but this is gonna outsell everything if its affordable... better not be like $10,000 LOL 586487398[/snapback] According to the CES website the expected selling price for the RAM is $6000 and $5000 for the storage. So it will definitely be over $11,000 But if this manages to become mainstream technology the price will surly drop dramatically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted September 6, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 6, 2005 and...? 586487130[/snapback] and what? I already answered his question.. please read everything before posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted September 6, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 6, 2005 its not 6.8 ghz its 6,800 ghz see pic with comma not period!http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page4.html (halfway down) 586487237[/snapback] no those are not english format... 6,800 In ENGLISH format is 6.800 some languages use commas where we use decimals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfader Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 omg chill with the ghz the thermal rating on the chip will be in the 1000's of TDP, not to mention all the cooling u'd need.a dual core pentium M running at 3.0Ghz a core would be faster than any dual core chip available, require less power, produce less heat and be the fastest gaming chip around. more cores would be better than ghz imo, the ghz gets ppl interested tho. 586487288[/snapback] If you had been looking what they claim - processor technology is very different from what Intel, AMD, IBM or others do. magnet-optical whatever. And cannot talk about cores here. I bet that processor doesnt need much cooling at all. I belive this is not fake, and is very much homebrew stuff. If they get all the patents we may not see the benefits any time soon - corporations like Intel - 1. dont want to see this happen at all and use whatever strategies 2. pay some $ for patent and start transition from manufacturing technology they have already invested in so much 3. these guys(atomchip) dont get proper investments or bigtime buyers and keep layng low and so on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobster Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Well I'll believe it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway. Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 OMFG!!!! AWESOME!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raikou Tch Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 While I believe this could be true, my friend says when he did an image contrast test on the laptop picture, the LCD's contrast did not differ at all or go along with the contrast difference of the case reflections. Even if the screenshot is fake though, and they just edited it into a laptop, it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. I personally hope it's not fake and they demo it at CES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santiagof4 Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Fake :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoe*nix Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 (edited) and what? I already answered his question.. please read everything before posting 586487512[/snapback] So you did. My bad. no those are not english format... 6,800 In ENGLISH format is 6.800 some languages use commas where we use decimals 586487535[/snapback] 3 people have already pointed this out, please read everything before posting ;) Edited September 6, 2005 by phoe*nix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liger Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 :drool: :drool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webeagle12 Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 with 1 awesome big graphic card & im buying it :D 586486607[/snapback] yeah just for low price of $100,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EPR Posted September 6, 2005 Author Share Posted September 6, 2005 WOW First time I post a news topic. I have created a MONSTER!!! I think that this is real, but like all kick ace technology it won't get to the masses in 3-4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucko Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I can easily believe a 6.8GHz CPU. I can *barely* believe a 6.8GHz CPU in such a dense heat environment. I can NOT believe a System Properties window that says 1TB RAM, on an OS that had a 4GB on a 32 bit platform or 128GB on a 64 bit platform RAM limitation last time I checked...EDIT: Here is some really big text to make my comment stand out. Windows XP would not run 1TB of RAM. It's FAKE. 586486612[/snapback] Ever heard of 64Bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesNQ Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Ever heard of 64Bit? 586487958[/snapback] Yes, he says in his post that the limitation for 64 bit is 128gb last time he checked. I can easily believe a 6.8GHz CPU. I can *barely* believe a 6.8GHz CPU in such a dense heat environment. I can NOT believe a System Properties window that says 1TB RAM, on an OS that had a 4GB on a 32 bit platform or 128GB on a 64 bit platform RAM limitation last time I checked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotwire Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 all these newbie talking is confusing me. is it the ram, cpu speed or the hard drive? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: :wacko: it ought to be fake. oh well wasted 1 min of my life :pinch: :pinch: :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucianmarin Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 (edited) Ever heard of 64Bit? 586487958[/snapback] That's Windows XP SP2 (version 2002, 32bits), max RAM for 32bits is 4GB (nothing more) http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page4.html it's a big fake on the hard drive properties, there is a missin hard disk icon what does mean that word in russian at the end? Edited September 6, 2005 by Kalphegor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted September 6, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 6, 2005 That screenshot is from a 32-bit version of XP (There is no 64-bit version of NT 5.1). Beyond that dead giveaway, there are others: 1) The System Properties screenshot has the hard-coded "Computer:" text removed. 2) The system is not running Physical Address Extension and thus cannot support greater than 4GB of memory. Although, it probably IS running PAE, since SP2 enables it by default, but they blocked that out when they edited the screenshot (very poorly). So yeah, it's very, very fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotabigtruck Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Windows Server 2003 edition comparison Only the 64-bit versions of Windows Server 2003 Enterprise/Datacenter support 1TB of RAM. It would be impossible to patch XP 32-bit to allow that much RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts