FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 26,263 (4.41/day)
- Location
- IA, USA
System Name | BY-2021 |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile) |
Motherboard | MSI B550 Gaming Plus |
Cooling | Scythe Mugen (rev 5) |
Memory | 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB |
Video Card(s) | AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT |
Storage | Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X20 TB 7200 RPM |
Display(s) | Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI) |
Case | Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay + USB 3.2 (A+C) 3.5" bay |
Audio Device(s) | Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+ |
Power Supply | Enermax Platimax 850w |
Mouse | Nixeus REVEL-X |
Keyboard | Tesoro Excalibur |
Software | Windows 10 Home 64-bit |
Benchmark Scores | Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare. |
Anything and everything is capable of error. It's always the margins that matter (MTBF, if you will). The longer a system can go without error, the better it is for science. When building a super computer, for instance, you buy parts that proven to work at a given spec, you make sure it isn't a bad processor in a separate computer, then plug it in to the server until it goes bad. You do everything possible to make sure errors are kept to a bare minimum. Anything that tends to cause errors is avoided.One final query, is a box stock computer capable of error?? If so, it also would be liable to produce inaccurate/erroneous result..correct?
What we're talking about here is an error once a month versus an error once a year. That would be a 12:1 ratio. The bigger the ratio, the better it is for science/computing/whatever.
Regardless of whether or not the ratio is big or small, all science should be double checked--if not by the computers that did it in the first place then by someone else through peer review (in which case you get laughed at).