Talk:Floating point operations per second
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Floating point operations per second article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Update "Cost of computing" metric to $/TFLOPS?
[edit]With the lowest price per GFLOP being one cent now, I think it may be appropriate to update the chart's metric to $/TFLOPS for more meaningful comparisons going forward that won't require fractions of cents. The fact that it hasn't been done yet is already kinda weird, since the table ends in several entries that each only have one significant figure. Sizniche (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Processor table
[edit]The AMD section does not include 3DNow! which was AMD's equivalent (and then some) of Intel's MMX for floating point acceleration. I believe they also had the equivalent of an x87 unit in their earlier processors?
I'm not sure how necessary the table truly is to the article however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.33.10 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
FLOPS comparison
[edit]The rounding in the flops comparison prices is too great. The difference between two items being rounded to the nearest penny can be more than a 10% inaccuracy, which is pretty bad. For example the gap between the PS5 and Xbox series X is significant but they're both 4C per gigaflop. I think the solution is to measure the cost per teraflop, or to show fractions of cents. As computers get faster this rounding will make the comparison useless, because it is already 1C and cannot go any lower without the cost displaying zero. If think the solution is to display $40/teraflop instead of 4C/gigaflop. Haplessfooligan (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)