Human Brain Clock Speed??

[Dj-Icer]

New come ups from apple G5 ...the most powerful and fastest living computer in the planet so far, as it goes. with this so much of power, doesn't come cheap.
what i know of, its casing is in black and monitor quite huge, covered in some sort of glass...very appealing...

[ShawnD1]

Actually it's not the fastest, there are computers that are over 20ghz but those are all in testing pretty much. The G5 isn't even faster than the P4.
http://spl.haxial.com/apple-powermac-G5/

It's easy to claim you're the fastest when you lie about it.

If you look at Apple's Graphics page about the PowerMac, you can see a pretty graph where Apple claims that in a 1024x768 Quake 3 benchmark, the G5 scores 337 fps (frames per second), while the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz scores only 275 fps.

Anyone who knows a bit about 3D gaming would probably be instantly suspicious about this benchmark because the performance of 3D games has more to do with the 3D video card being used (in this case the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro) than the CPU/processor in the computer (although the processor is still significant).

Not ready to be fooled, I found this March 2003 Sharky Extreme article by Vince Freeman. As you can see, Sharky Extreme says they achieved 334 fps, which is much faster than the 275 fps that Apple claims the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz achieves. My suspicions were confirmed: Apple is deliberately attempting to mislead its customers again.

To give you an idea of how badly Apple is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, consider what happens when you downgrade the Pentium from 3.0 GHz to 2.53 GHz, and when you downgrade the Radeon from a 9800 to 9700. How fast is it now? According to this August 2002 Tom's Hardware article, the Radeon 9700 on Pentium 2.53 GHz scores 303 fps. And yet, Apple claims 275 fps for the Radeon 9800 on Pentium 3.0 GHz. In other words, even if I downgrade the Pentium computer to something significantly slower than what Apple claims to have benchmarked, I still get faster speeds than Apple claims for the Pentium 4 3.0 GHz.

[pinoy87]

Also I didn't know that the ATI radeon 9800's are even compatable with Mac's.

[joker_927]

I have always wanted to know at what Frames Per Second the human eye sees at.

Obviously the statement that the hman eye cant see anything about 40 is ridiculous. Playing games at 50 and then jumping to 100 is easily noticable.

I wondered what WE see at. It's got to be different for every person, but there must be a norm.

I thought of a way to test it, and get the answer. I think.

Take a screen, some kind of monitor, that is capable of refreshing the screen millions of times a second. (Don't know if this is possible) Setup a program that runs all black screens, and then 1 white screen. At 1 FPS, you see the white screen for a whole second. At 2 FPS you only see it for 1/2 a second. At 40 fps you can still see the white screen flash. Just increase the speed until you can't see the white screen anymore, and that is what speed the eye sees at.

At least this is my theory.

Wait, maybe I can make money off of this........ DELETING!!!!!

[jerrygarcia]

Uhh........I think my brain is running Windoze ME. I'm BSOD'ing right now.

[ShawnD1]

You can't test your max eye fps on a computer because most monitors can't go over 100hz. It doesn't matter if your computer is doing 300fps if your monitor only does 100.

[joker_927]

that was why i was saying we need a monitor that can do a LOTA refresh rate.

[OuTpaTienT]

Originally posted by joker_927
I have always wanted to know at what Frames Per Second the human eye sees at.

Obviously the statement that the hman eye cant see anything about 40 is ridiculous. Playing games at 50 and then jumping to 100 is easily noticable.

I wondered what WE see at. It's got to be different for every person, but there must be a norm.

I thought of a way to test it, and get the answer. I think.

Take a screen, some kind of monitor, that is capable of refreshing the screen millions of times a second. (Don't know if this is possible) Setup a program that runs all black screens, and then 1 white screen. At 1 FPS, you see the white screen for a whole second. At 2 FPS you only see it for 1/2 a second. At 40 fps you can still see the white screen flash. Just increase the speed until you can't see the white screen anymore, and that is what speed the eye sees at.

At least this is my theory.

Wait, maybe I can make money off of this........ DELETING!!!!!

The military have performed test very similar to what you destribe on their pilots. What they did was have the men sit in a cockpit type enfiornment with a huge curved screen in front of them that represented the sky in their forward field of vision.

Then they would flash a small image of a jet fighter somewhere in their field of vision. I believe they had the projector projecting the sky and this jet fighter they would flash only appeared on one frame and it would appear in random places. The men were asked to identify the location of the jet as well as identify the model as friend or foe.

The article I read said some (didn't specify how many) of the pilots could locate and identify that jet at film speeds up to 250 frams per second.

So, IOW, the jet would be flashed for 1/250th of a second and their human eyes were capable of catching it.

So next time someone says that tired old phrase, "the human eye can't see over 30 fps anyways..blah, blah, blah..." just roll your eyes.

[joker_927]

cool! what does IOW mean tho?

in other words i bet

[OuTpaTienT]

Right.

[muno]

Isn't the phrase, out, like this:
''The human eye won't notice difference at framerates above 30'?

So, even if the eye was able to see modifications in image at framerates over 30, it wouldn't mean the image was any different for the eye, no matter if it was 30 or 250fps.

This is a question
-M

[ShawnD1]

It's not even close to true. Play a game at 30fps then play it at 50 or 60. You will see a huge difference.

[muno]

I very rarely play games, and even more rarely have I set the fps to be displayed so I can't get any 1st hand experience now.

That's the reason I tried to phrase my sentence as a question.
-M

[Gait_Keeper]

me?? frequent BSOD's, memory crashes, corrupted data

I'm burned right now from too much work

[ShawnD1]

Ok well you can also see the difference by looking at fluorescent lights. Look at a fluorescent light running at 30hz and you'll see it flicker. Look at one at 60hz (standard) and you won't see it flicker so bad but you'll eventualy get sore eyes. Look at a conventional style light bulb (has no hz rating) and you won't get strained eyes. Normal bulbs don't have a refresh rate because the element stays hot.

The difference between 30 and 60 is a lot. The difference between 60 and unmeasurably high is also a lot.

[blubomber]

I remeber seeing something about a year or so ago where doctors were trying to connect a memory chip to human brain tissue. And apparently they had some success.

So, is this the beginnig to really having a small hole behind your ear, (Johny Neumonic) or a hole at the base of your scull (Matrix) that data came uploaded to and downloaded from? Or would it be a chip only accessible by your brain that would allow you to recall every word you have read since its installation?

Maybe that is the future. Not creating a machine to match what the human brain can do, but combining computer chips with the human brain to give us more capabilities.

Borg?

[Gait_Keeper]

Borg, Gou'ald, all Aliens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


they're here already

V-chip anyone

[win2kuser]

I saw a program on Discovery Science at the weekend about this question. They were saying that at the moment, the fastest computers on the planet were about 1000 times slower than the thickest computer brain. Give it another 10 years and they will be faster.

They posed the question that once they are faster, will they try and take over?

If they do become faster, does that nesesarily mean that they automatically become more inteligent and say I think therefore I am.

Computers are dumb imo, they will only do what you tell them to do, yeah sure you can program ai into them, but that doesn't mean they are thinking, they are just following a program.

They also went on to show a robot that had 8 legs and knew that it could move them but it didn't know how to walk. They put this thing down in within 30 seconds it had learnt to move them in sequence to get to a specific point. Does this show inteligence or just clever programming.

In another section of the program, they discribed how Cambridge university in England had been growing brain tissue directly onto silicon and were using the brain of a beatle in robotic research.

Scary stuff indeed.

Will we ever see "Terminator" style behavour from robots and computers? If they are refering to the typical cpu then no, but if they start messing about with real brain tissue as the brain/cpu of a robot/computer then yes, I think we will have to be very carefull at how far we let them go.

We as the human race are more inteligent than any other creature on the planet, therefore we are in control, we herd cows together, use other creatures for our own benifits etc. What happens when computers rise up and realise that they are more inteligent than we are? And if it goes to far, will they let us switch them off?

Damn my brain hurts...

[J-Excel]

Originally posted by muno
Isn't the phrase, out, like this:
''The human eye won't notice difference at framerates above 30'?

So, even if the eye was able to see modifications in image at framerates over 30, it wouldn't mean the image was any different for the eye, no matter if it was 30 or 250fps.

This is a question
-M

Motion looks fluid to the human eye at 30 FPS. That's different than saying the human eye can only see 30 FPS.

[A.K.Arkane]

we would have aton of problems if we all started placing PC like hardware in our heads/brains.

1)over heating
2) out of date
3) cheat hardware
4]bad programming of hardware/drivers
5) crappy tech. support.
6) we all be running probley some kinda Bill Gates software that makes not think..LOl