Can your average onboard video card drive monitors at that resolution?
Yes, without any difficulty. It's 2012. Unless you want to play 3D games - in that case, just drop down to a lower resolution to play your game fullscreen, and go back to normal res when you exit.
Obsessive 'gamers' who want to play the latest titles at maximum resolution and maximum refresh are very much in the minority, and they have always tended to buy separate video cards anyway.
Conditional execution is nice, but it really interferes with modern architectures. The ARMv8 core is a fully speculative, out-of-order with register renaming implementation.
Conditional execution lets you avoid a test and jump. If you rewrite code to have conditional jumps instead of conditional execution, there are still just as many code paths for the speculative execution to worry about. But I am not a chip designer so there may be some reason why it's easier.
I do wonder whether speculative out-of-order execution is truly the 'modern' way, though. For single-threaded code, certainly. But if your system is going to be multicore anyway, it might be better to spend the silicon on having two simpler, non-speculative cores rather than one more complex one.
I think this is the best wax figure ever.
Until a new slightly taller and lighter wax figure is released next year.
The other scenario, which I believe the article is talking about, is where bricks are trading at $1.00 and without high-frequency trading, you might be able to buy ten of them for a dollar each. Not by putting in an order for ten at once - that would push the price up - but by being a bit stealthy and buying only one or two at a time. Now, with high frequency traders, somebody will notice that you are buying one or two bricks and guess that you're likely to buy more. They buy some, pushing the price up, and hoping to offload them later. But not all of the difference in price is creamed off by the high frequency trader; most of it goes to the original seller. So instead of buying ten bricks at $1.00 each, you pay $1.10 each, the high frequency trader skims off $0.01, and the seller receives $1.09. So the seller, who might also be an 'ordinary investor', gets a better price for the bricks he is selling.
We always imagine that there is some magic way to interpose yourself in transactions and take a cut, but markets don't work like that. The seller would not bother to trade with the high frequency people unless they were offering at least a slightly better price than he would have got otherwise.
They also contend that ordinary investors are paying more for their stocks, not less, because computerized traders pick up information about stock orders and push up prices before orders can be filled.
But hang on a second, who is selling the stock which an 'ordinary investor' wishes to buy? Might it not be an 'ordinary investor' on the other end of the trade too? In which case, if the price is pushed up, one 'ordinary investor' benefits just as much as another one loses.
There are two sides to every trade, a buyer and a seller. A change in price is a gain for one side and a loss for the other. A rise or a fall in prices is not good or bad in itself.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"