I'm sorry, but there is no wearable device which can handle terabytes of data per second. Heck, my brand new Haswell has a peak memory bandwidth of 17GB/s; even to the L1 cache, its theoretical max is 700GB/s.
This sounds like a puff PR piece.
Completely understandable, given the fact that Wired Magazine is after all, pretty new to all this computing and technology business ... /s
I can't imagine any (tech-savvy) editor proofreading this not going "wait what, terabytes, really??" -- which is then presumably their job to doublecheck.
1:48:45 in the official video: http://news.microsoft.com/windows10story/
I'm confused Wire - please clarify
That's not really an excuse to dumbly repeat something which sounds so amazingly far-fetched (see other comment elsewhere, what sensors even produce TBs of data per second?), it verges on the physically impossible, reporting it without even blinking an eye--such as "yes, you read that right, we think it's hard to believe too", or preferably some explanation of how it can even be possible. How did the reporter not go "Wait what--terabytes per second?!!".
Eight or more virtual cores plus SIMD operations that can smash against large chunks of data per cycle adds up awfully fast on a 4GHz chip.
They're also probably counting the fact that data flows from one system to another in sequence, but adding up each sequence. Eight streams of 150 gigabytes per second for example.
This doesn't count information that's captured but discarded at the source, processed away before it's transmitted downstream.
(not head-mounted!)
As a point of reference the Leap Motion Dragonfly has 2 x 3K sensors w/ 225fps color and 720fps tracking.
Presumably the "HPU" is an ASIC that bakes in some sort of SLAM/positional tracking, skeletal tracking, and gaze tracking.