Shouldn't we end up "connecting" an external graphics processor rather then "inserting" it? Insertion feels like putting something in, usually resulting in the thing being inserted becoming internal to the thing being inserted into. I.E. disk (compact, hard or floppy), making the beast with two backs, a bookmark, sample for the test chamber.
With external graphics dojiggers I envision us have large boxes sitting on desks hooked to our computers and even more fan noise due to power and cooling needs.
Intel Core i7 I7-920 Quad Core Processor (2.66GHz, 4x256kB, 4.8GT/s QPI, LGA 1336 Socket B)
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad Core Processor (3.4GHz, 6MB L3 Cache, 4x512KB L2 Cache, 2000 MHz Bus, Socket AM3)
Asus P7P55D Motherboard (Intel Socket H LGA1156, P55 Express, ATX, 16GB DDR3)
Intel Core i5 750 Qaud Core Processor (2.66GHz, 8MB L3 Cache, 2.5 GT/s Bus, Socket H LGA1156)
Asus M4A785TD-V EVO AMD 785G/SB710 Socket AM3 ATX Motherboard
AMD's CrossFire X to enable integrated, discrete GPU co-operation
Demian Phillips
External insertions and big boxes. #
Posted Friday 14th December 2007 15:20 GMT
Shouldn't we end up "connecting" an external graphics processor rather then "inserting" it? Insertion feels like putting something in, usually resulting in the thing being inserted becoming internal to the thing being inserted into. I.E. disk (compact, hard or floppy), making the beast with two backs, a bookmark, sample for the test chamber.
With external graphics dojiggers I envision us have large boxes sitting on desks hooked to our computers and even more fan noise due to power and cooling needs.