Complexity for computers and the real world

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by maximara

There was a reason I included "What complexity would home computers of 2021 have? Ie a i9 vs an M1?" in the series of questions.

The M1 is a variant of the CPU found in iPhones and iPads which logically are less complex than a desktop and yet it is cleaning the clock of even some i9 workstations which logically should have ''more'' processing power.

Heck, Unix which was designed for Minicomputers connected to dumb terminals is run on modern Macs. I worked with Minicomputer systems in the 1970s and I can tell you nearly any modern PC would curb stomp them. Yet despite this a Minicomputer should have ''more'' processing power. How does that work?

A 1970s minicomputer is Complexity 1 by default (-3 Complexity for using transistors). So yes modern desk tops stomp them.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

A 1970s minicomputer is Complexity 1 by default (-3 Complexity for using transistors). So yes modern desk tops stomp them.

Uh a minicomputer is Complexity 5 and besides Large-scale integration (-2) computers showed up in the 1970s with the Altair 8800, kit (1974) and Apple II (1977).

So I would say Complexity 2 for a 1970s minicomputer perhaps 3 for the ones using LSI.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by maximara

Uh a minicomputer is Complexity 5 and besides Large-scale integration (-2) computers showed up in the 1970s with the Altair 8800, kit (1974) and Apple II (1977).

So I would say Complexity 2 for a 1970s minicomputer perhaps 3 for the ones using LSI.

So when you say "minicomputer" you mean what High Tech calls a mainframe at 400 lbs? Still less juice than a TL 8 desk top though.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

So when you say "minicomputer" you mean what High Tech calls a mainframe at 400 lbs? Still less juice than a TL 8 desk top though.

This is one place where GURPS High-Tech - Electricity and Electronics could have been a little better. Just qualifies as a Minicomputer built with "Standard VLSI"? It certainly won't be the 400 lbs thing that existed c 1969.

While I have figured out some reasonable examples based on year I am kind of hitting a wall for Late VLSI and above. What is a good example of a computer that fits into the Late VLSI class as I can't think of any major innovations c 2000.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by maximara

This is one place where GURPS High-Tech - Electricity and Electronics could have been a little better. Just qualifies as a Minicomputer built with "Standard VLSI"? It certainly won't be the 400 lbs thing that existed c 1969.

While I have figured out some reasonable examples based on year I am kind of hitting a wall for Late VLSI and above. What is a good example of a computer that fits into the Late VLSI class as I can't think of any major innovations c 2000.

Those categories aren't intended to indicate major innovations, but ongoing progress in making chips smaller, faster, and less power-intensive. However, if yiou want a computer that fits into the Late VLSI class, you might take a look at the 2002 BlackBerry. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, IBM's Blue Gene/L design, which brought protein folding into the range of computational simulation.

As for names, "minicomputer" is what that size was called when it first came out; we had one in the lab for my assembly language course in 1972. So that's the name I used in tracing the historical sequence. But the meaning of any size class name in GURPS is the meaning that it is assigned in the relevant books, for gaming purposes; it can't be expected to exactly track real world usage. Treat it as a "term of art." It might be interesting to see a catalog of computer models from the 1940s to the 2020s, comparable to various catalogs of guns, with exact GURPS specifications for each, but I'm not the right author for that book; I was just trying to provide a set of conceptual tools that could be used by GMs to describe computers in their worlds as a somewhat closer approximation to the actual history than the standard treatment allows.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It might be interesting to see a catalog of computer models from the 1940s to the 2020s, comparable to various catalogs of guns, with exact GURPS specifications for each, but I'm not the right author for that book; I was just trying to provide a set of conceptual tools that could be used by GMs to describe computers in their worlds as a somewhat closer approximation to the actual history than the standard treatment allows.

The only problem with the conceptual tools is you can get too bogged down with the Computer-Design aspect rather then the size which is what that section actually represents. We have seen that in this very thread.

Also there are real world examples where the conceptual tools suggest results that are off the rails.

For example, the M1 Mac mini is a Medium Computer that is Compact (x2) and fast (x20) so by the table is should cost x40 times what is a "normal" Medium Computer. But it doesn't; if anything it is cheaper then its Intel predecessor even before you factor in inflation.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by maximara

Also there are real world examples where the conceptual tools suggest results that are off the rails.

That's going to be the case with any set of game rules intended to emulate the real world.

For example, the M1 Mac mini is a Medium Computer that is Compact (x2) and fast (x20) so by the table is should cost x40 times what is a "normal" Medium Computer. But it doesn't; if anything it is cheaper then its Intel predecessor even before you factor in inflation.

I'll stipulate Medium and Compact; it's a closer fit to the actual weight than making it Small. But I'm not sure about Fast. Another option would be to say that contrary to some predictions, Apple has come up with a further level of VLSI, beyond Advanced (either as still higher TL8 or as early TL9), right on schedule, and that this gives us the +1 Complexity at no cost multiple. That still makes it too expensive, but not by so outrageous a factor.

I'm not noticing "cheaper," by the way. I bought one not long after they came out, and they seemed to be comparable in price to my previous Mac Mini.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'll stipulate Medium and Compact; it's a closer fit to the actual weight than making it Small. But I'm not sure about Fast.

The M1 Mini is pounding the stuffing out of even low end i9 systems both in benchmarks and real world. If that isn't fast what is?

Originally Posted by whswhs

IAnother option would be to say that contrary to some predictions, Apple has come up with a further level of VLSI, beyond Advanced (either as still higher TL8 or as early TL9), right on schedule, and that this gives us the +1 Complexity at no cost multiple. That still makes it too expensive, but not by so outrageous a factor.

Actually the M1s use what amounts to an improved version of ARM250 SoC (1992) which I figure goes into the Standard VLSI (0) category. The A4, the distant ancestor to the M1, came out in 2014 so perhaps Advanced VLSI.

There is more to the M1 Macs speed then their CPU: their use of RISC, how they manage RAM (unified memory), a SSD which they can use as extra RAM, and an OS written for the CPU.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not noticing "cheaper," by the way. I bought one not long after they came out, and they seemed to be comparable in price to my previous Mac Mini.

The base cost at release of the 2018 i5 Intel Mac mini $1099 while the base cost of a 2020 M1 Mac Mini is $699. So even before you throw in Fast it is cheaper.

The 2020 M1 Mac Mini is fast compared to the 2018 i5 Intel Mac mini, right? Ego it is Fast which is x20 cost by the table.

But the base cost at release of the 2018 i5 Intel Mac mini was $1099 while the base cost of a 2020 M1 Mac Mini is $699.

[TGLS]

Honestly, I think that any scheme that places a 2001 XP box, a 2007 Nintendo Wii, a 2014 iPad, and a 2020 Android smartphone in different complexity brackets is probably too fine grained to be useful. I might be trying to counter my IT bias too much, but I think GURPS needs chunky complexity levels that can be understood by people who have Incompetence (Computers). Maybe complexity levels like this:
1) Calculators
2) Early PCs (i.e. pre 2000)
3) Modern PCs (i.e. Post 2000)
4) Modern Datacenters
5+) Future Computers

Given that exact complexity is only really useful for Cryptography and sapient AI, I don't think there should be a strong focus on Complexity.

[Tyneras]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Given that exact complexity is only really useful for Cryptography and sapient AI, I don't think there should be a strong focus on Complexity.

Part of the issue is the lack of things to do WITH computers. The only interesting software I can think of are from Pyramid 3/21 for cyberpunk games. Otherwise software tends to be about as interesting as the rations listed in your backpack.