Slashdot Mirror

You are correct - see here, it's a battery and the charge controller is on the board. I use similar but smaller Panasonic cells in my hardware, so I definitely know that it's my duty to charge them properly (+3.200V over certain resistor and a diode, etc. etc.)

The iphone isn't a "slick portable computer with cell phone capability". It's an oversized phone with a crippled PDA capability. Anyway, Opera's been available for PPC devices (and also Psions and other phones) for quite a while now. The iphone can't record video, and the stills are worse than those from a Samsung device.. Oh well, enjoy your koolaid.

They did not make it easy to change the SIM card or the battery in this device. While it is a really cool phone/camera/internet doom-a-flitchy device, I have to wonder what they will do if the battery is found to be defective or something. What is rather funny is that all the main chips in the device seem to be made by samsung for apple.

I really don't.

The article you cited is AMD marketspeak from April 23.

Barcelona's launch prospects are looking grim. If you recall this time last year, Intel had been showing off Conroe for almost half a year before launch. I have no doubt AMD can make it work in the long run (witness the evolution of K8) but they seem to be having serious problems and running out of time.

Sigh, I'm still writing:
1) I was comparing the original iPod to the original Nomad Jukebox, both of which existed in 2001. The Nomad Jukebox had a 2.5" laptop HDD as compared to the iPod's 1.8" HDD. Then the Nomad only had 8mb of RAM, as opposed to the iPod's 32mb. In practice this means the Nomad had 2 songs in queue where the iPod had 8; this noticably speed up seek times while skipping through a playlist. The 32mb also allowed the iPod to keep the entire library database in ram, which helps when a user is scrolling through the playlists without actually hitting the iPod.

All information gleaned from here:
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=1508

I was also comparing the original iPod to the then current 32mb and 64mb flash players. Same form factor, but 10x the storage. I was never comparing the flash iPod... the flash iPod was released AFTER the original iPod was a success.

Anyway, have fun :)

That's a DDR3 board. Also Anandtech has a good article showing the actual assembly a bit better. http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2080&p=5

Anandtech had an article about this very thing, regarding AMD's torrenza. AMD - The Road Ahead

Nice try, but alas, NO.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2832

PC video cards will actually work in the Mac Pro under Windows XP, they will not however work under OS X or during any of the pre-boot period of starting the machine...we got a lot of display corruption as you can see from the screenshot below...On the OS X side, if you try to boot with a PC video card you'll simply get a black screen from start to finish.

I'm a huge mac fan and this is my number one hardware complaint.

While I agree with you that PC laptops are cheaper for better performance, your example is not. GHz for GHz, Core 2 Duos consistently outperform AMD X2s. Check any benchmarks. I prefer Anandtech. Here's one example. Also, both are 64-bit.

1. Go to AnandTech
2. Click on the "Guides" tab.
3. Decide whether you are an entry-level, mid-range, or high-end user.
4. Open up that guide and either buy the parts he lists, or just spec a system with the same processor, video card, and memory type.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6188522.html

Apparently it's not all it's cracked up to be.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc .aspx?i=2985&p=4

Apparently just more marketing hype.

It's time for ATI to release their drivers as OSS.

I just hope that AMD can make a big enough improvement on their cores before Intel can get thier cpu to cpu speeds up to par

Anandtech says otherwise:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2419&p=3
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=4

The xbitlabs guy definitely misinterpreted some of his results (particularly the interaction between bus speed and cache-to-cache latency), and his code may have been buggy.

Anandtech says otherwise:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2419&p=3
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=4

The xbitlabs guy definitely misinterpreted some of his results (particularly the interaction between bus speed and cache-to-cache latency), and his code may have been buggy.

80 cores means there are probably quite a lot of on-chip interconnects between the cores.

There has to be a typo hiding in there, but the whole thing is an empty set. It's hard to believe they can make 80 cores with 100E6 transistors when it take 261E6 transistors to make two. Each core would have less than a million transistors in the 80 core model. You have to go all the way back to the 486 to see that kind of count from Intel. It's possible because the cores are not x86, there's no "ability to use memory" and ... it's vapor ware. For the practical significance, they might as well have photographed a box of Pentiums and called it useful because Open Mosix does auto clustering and there are live CD versions. You've got a better chance of computing something with the box of Pentiums.

Bus space is not likely to be an issue either. It does not show up in this image of the cell processor.

Anandtech has a decent comparison article for DDR2 vs. DDR3:
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=298 9&p=5

TLDR: high latency DDR3 performs about the same as high-end DDR2.
Once DDR3 latency improves (or the price goes down), expect it to be better than DDR2, but not until then.

Wasn't this reviewed 2 months ago by AnandTech?

Anandtech reviewed this drive a month ago .
Though I seem to remember reading that it was an OEM Sample from dell using 200 GB platters, and that by the retail launch they would be using larger(320 GB?) platters. That is why they posted it, right? Retail launch? It better be, otherwise, they're in for (more of) a flaming.

Typo Flame..........check
Not News Flame...check
Dupe Flame.........missing

Almost there guys, need a little help though.

Initial review March 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49

Follow-up RAID performance April 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49

Follow-up to the follow-up April 23rd:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 74

Initial review March 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49

Follow-up RAID performance April 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49

Follow-up to the follow-up April 23rd:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 74

Initial review March 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49

Follow-up RAID performance April 19th:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 49

Follow-up to the follow-up April 23rd:

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=29 74

I mean, I've been checking out the reviews out there... For example, http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39580/ http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39603/ http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39605/ http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39635/ http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1335&Itemid=1/ http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1325&Itemid=1/ http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1336&Itemid=1/ http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1337&Itemid=1/ http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r60 0-architecture.html/ http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988 / http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2900_XT/ I see that everyone came to pretty much same results. I'm not sure this "HD2900XT" thing will be repairable. I think that perhaps AMD's announcement that they're targeting best-buy in high-end is more valid. Although that one might have been said in pure desparation....

Actually, it seems as though IT-review.net actually did the whole shabbang of testing on various platforms, check these: http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1335&Itemid=1 http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1325&Itemid=1 http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1336&Itemid=1 http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=1337&Itemid=1 Also included, some links to other big websites with pretty much the same results: http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39580 http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39603 http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39605 http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39635 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r60 0-architecture.html http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988 http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2900_XT/

As usual Anandtech is extremely thorough: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988 &p=26

[H]ardocp's take: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM 0MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

techPowerUp (Warning, streaming video at the start >.>): http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2900_XT/

The Inquirers expected vapid coverage: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39 580

I think I'll wait for more ATI drivers and some DX10 games before calling this one... Looks a little underwhelming at the moment though. I'm not regreting my 8800GTX purchase yet. ;)

The final step in the evolution of Fusion is where the CPU and GPU are truly integrated, and the GPU is accessed by user mode instructions just like the CPU. You can expect to talk to the GPU via extensions to the x86 ISA, and the GPU will have its own register file (much like FP and integer units each have their own register files). Elements of the architecture will be shared, especially things like the cache hierarchy, which will prove useful when running applications that require both CPU and GPU power.

According to http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2977 , the new Nvidia 8500 and 8600 series cards have 100% H.264 offload acceleration, so it might be the kind of card you are looking for. The 8500 is also relatively cheap, coming in under $100. As for Beryl/Compiz, even a Radeon 7000 and integrated graphics will do, while for Aero Glass most DirectX9 compliant cards will handle it well.

Jetway Magic Twin MiniQ Computer

One of our favorite things on slashdot! The obligatory "This isn't news, I've been doing it for X years!" post

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=4 02
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM zNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2979
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8593

The reviews that were posted here on /. while good normally didn't do their homework today with this new card. Only Anandtech seemed to take a look at what is currently available in terms of factory overclocked 8800GTX's on the market. They used the EVGA 8800GTX KO w/AC3, which benches within less then 1% of the performance of the 8800 Ultra AND costs $180 LESS!

Read the review yourself....

Read this review.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2979

And conclusion
"But not this time: The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra is an utter waste of money. "

Don't pay $180 extra for something that gives only few percents extra.

From Anand, AMD, News.com and X-bit labs the numbers tell of an ever increasing marketshare for AMD. Note that this is for all servers, not just against Intel, meaning that Sun, IBM, and other servers are included. Then there's the 4 socket server category, where AMD has 48% of total marketshare in Q2 2006, and is the category I'd be more interested in as that is a true high-end server market. Then there's the Top 500 Nov 2006 List which lists 4 Opteron systems and a single Intel Itanium system in the top 10, along with 5 PowerPC systems. I should also note that only 31 Woodcrest systems are on the list vs 76 dual core Opterons.

Basically, AMD's server market share has been growing in leaps and bounds over the past 2 years, and has broken Intel's x86 monopoly in the space, especially once you exceed 2 processors. With Dell now finally offering AMD CPUs, I expect that number to grow.

Unless you are buying the absolute fastest chip on the shelf with a massive premium you want to know which chip offers a superior architecture. Comparing the performance of two chips at the same clock tells you that. Especially since AMD chips are much lower in price than Intel chips. Assuming you don't have a limitless budget you can definately get a rock solid AMD chip that outperforms the equally priced Intel chip at any price point but the very top.

huh? I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with recent hardware developments. Ever since the Core2Duo, Intel's taken the performance-per--watt crown from AMD.

See: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2933&p=9

It's faster, yes. But I can't wait to see how much less power it uses. The main benefit I see from Intel moving to 45-nm should be getting speeds => Core2 but using less power. As everyone continues on the path to 'greener' tech, this will be one of the biggest selling factors for the Penryn family.

And let's not forget that when this comes out in '08, the Core2's will get even cheaper! Heck I'm still excited about the next price drop for the Core2's this 22nd (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdo c.aspx?i=2963&p=2).

There's another thing ATI does better.

There's another look at these cards at anandtech, here: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970

I usually find their reviews to be the best around. Always very detailed, and from what I've seen always right on the money. (They seem impressed, but their bottom line seems to be that, for now, you're better of sticking with a 7600GT, 7900GS or X1950XT if you already have one.)

The latest Intel and NVIDIA chipsets (with USB 2.0 built into the chipsets) seem to peform well in Windows XP.

8-Core Opteron. First hit on Google. The point is, I think, is that outside of the Apple Walled Sandpit, there are plenty of off-the-shelf choices or, more importantly for those that like to roll their own, that is, "hackers", you want an 8-core machine, you can drop by Fry's and buy the damn parts yourself. Intel's "Nehalem" chipset is, I think, a ready to run 8-core chipset for the Intels. You think *Apple* went out and invented its own 8-core Intel chipset? I don't think so.

http://www.espn.com/ (Bill Simmons' column, NBA, MLB NFL section in that order)
http://www.foxsports.com/ (MLB, NBA, NFL)
http://slashdot.org/ (duh...)
http://www.anandtech.com/ (although I just check the RSS feed lately...)
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.inq7.net/ (Philippine news)

From there I usually branch out into different sites. I do keep a lot of RSS feeds that mainly get linked from those sites (Truehoop, Deadspin, Wages of wins, Extremetech, etc.). It's really easier and more efficient to just check RSS feeds on most sites.

So from those sites, you can see I'm pretty much a sports fan. I also browse through some Philippine computer retailers' websites to check up on prices if I'm in the hunt for something (like right now, I'm in the hunt for a decent LCD). Of course, if I still have time, pr0n gets to be part of that rotation :)

You're so wrong I wish it was funny.

I've seen many 19" (and 20") LCD monitors with a native resolution of 1600x1200.

In fact, here's a great Guide to Choosing the Right 19" LCD Monitor, from 3 years ago that reviews 19" LCD monitors with various aspect ratios.

As for 16:9 LCD monitors, here's another great article.

While I worked at a computer recycling company, we had a contract with a large monitor manufacturer (birds logo) and I had the opportunity to see and test many different types of LCD TVs, monitors, and some LCD displays that were very suitable for both. In short, you might want to avoid the rash sweeping generalizations that characterised your post.

Isn't Linux 90%+ socialistic? Most of the software is released for free (free beer), only generating donations, and done for fun and the benefit of all. I was under the impression that the distributions that cost a fee had a small market share.

And apparently, socialism can work. A few years ago (after the release of AMD64 Linux and before the release of XP x64), I remember seeing $40,000+ workstations running mostly open-source (free speech and free beer) software for Hollywood level video editing/creation (CinePaint and Cinerella, along with Maya, which is commercial). The market was blown open because the relatively cheap (compared to say SGI or SUN) AMD64 hardware platform usually runs 10-20% faster with 64-bit code, which Microsoft couldn't (or wouldn't) get to market. Intel's Netburst was a failure on 64-bit, and couldn't compete at 32-bit. Apple couldn't compete either. The G5 might have an edge on the Opteron per core (benchmarks here and here), but you can't stick 4 or 8 physical G5 cpu's in a machine like you can with Opteron.

You can.. though it'll cost you a pretty penny, and afaict you can't buy 3.0ghz Clovertowns at retail yet:

http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

$2400 for a pair of 2.66GHz Clovertowns on newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16819117111

Previous version of OS X were absolutely HORRIBLE at threading. Does Apple plan to fix this problem? If not, why would anyone bother with an 8 core Mac when the operating system can't really handle the extra cores, or do people plan to buy these and run Windows or Linux on them?

here in Europe is the end of the workday, so allow me to relax by unleashing my pedantry and let me tell you that was the brilliant Anand the performer of the stunt you are mentioning. cheers

There's a ton of Java developers out there. Their code does not run on MS OSes in general in production. Their tools are generally OS agnostic as well. In fact, in general, their tools run better on non-MS OSes. (Something about case-sensitive file systems)

There's the additional advantage that it's a *nix subsystem, which happens to mesh nicely with our targeted deploy environments.

I'd love to see a 16 or 32 core Mac Pro in the near future - imagine the processing ability of such a system. :)

The 4X4 and Intel Quadcore are both 4 CPU cores. Intel's 2 brand-new architecture 65nm dual core CPUs in a single chip package should have trounced the AMD 2 separate 3+ year old architecture 90nm dual core CPUs in a single system. The fact that it couldn't....

E4300 1.8 GHz ($169, $133 in Q2) = 4200+ 2.2 GHz ($102), both stock, according to Anandtech.

They also call it the "new king of budget overclocking" capable of 9x400 = 3.6 GHz = 100% overclock. What's that in equivalently performing AMD GHz? 4.2? Compared to the chip you said reached 3.0 GHz?

But you're right. Intel doesn't have anything to compete on the low end, sub-$100 market. They need to expand the E4x00 line for that.