Slashdot Mirror

That statement isn't true at all.

For a long time nvidia may have had the FPS crown, but the how the actual graphics looked on a radeon were MUCH better.

Quality vs Quantity, as seen here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/quality_vs_quantity_3.html https://www.nordichardware.com/Graphics/ati-radeon-x1950xtx-part-1/Image-Quality.html


-americamatrix

The i7 3770K has a TDP of 95W.

No it doesn't, but I guess if you don't have facts use FUD. Intel has kept a "segment TDP" on the retail packaging because they want all Sandy/Ivy Bridge motherboards, coolers etc. to support 95W processors - the maximum in the Sandy Bridge line - but the actual processor will never use more than 77W. This was explained here but Intel's site and 99,9% of all reviews and online sites will list it as a 77W processor. In fact the 95W figure is so rare that only reason to bring it up - particularly ignoring all the other places that say differently - is to troll.

The i7 3770K has a TDP of 95W.

I know that, at least in the past, Intel used to issue TDP numbers that represented "typical" heat, while AMD used to issue TDP numbers that represented worst-case heat (which is what TDP ought to be IMHO). I have read here on Slashdot that more recently, AMD has started playing those games as well.

But according to NordicHardware, in this case Intel is under-promising and over-delivering, and the chips really do dissipate only 77W despite being rated for 95W. (But how did they measure that? Is this a "typical" 77W? I guess it's not that hard to run a benchmark test that should hammer the chip and get a worst-case number that way.)

Curiously the AMD processors tend to stack up better on the Linux benchmark suites.

This is probably because Linux benchmarks were compiled with GCC or Clang rather than the Intel compiler. The Intel compiler deliberately generates code that makes the compiled code run poorly on non-Intel processors. The code checks the CPU ID, and the code has two major branches: the good path, which Intel chips get to run, and the poor path, which other chips run.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

The irony is that Intel, by investing heavily in fab technology, is about two generations ahead of everyone else, so they can make faster and/or lower-power parts than everyone else. This means they could be competing fairly and win.

But because Intel does evil things like making their compiler sabotage their competition, I refuse to buy Intel. They have lost my business. They don't care of course, because there aren't many like me who are paying attention and care enough to change their buying habits.

If you want the fastest possible desktop computer, pay the big bucks for a top-of-the-line i7 system. But if you merely want a very fast desktop computer that can play all the games, an AMD will do quite well, and will cost a bit less. So giving up Intel isn't a hard thing to do, really.

AMEN!

The i7 3770K has a TDP of 95W.

I know that, at least in the past, Intel used to issue TDP numbers that represented "typical" heat, while AMD used to issue TDP numbers that represented worst-case heat (which is what TDP ought to be IMHO). I have read here on Slashdot that more recently, AMD has started playing those games as well.

But according to NordicHardware, in this case Intel is under-promising and over-delivering, and the chips really do dissipate only 77W despite being rated for 95W. (But how did they measure that? Is this a "typical" 77W? I guess it's not that hard to run a benchmark test that should hammer the chip and get a worst-case number that way.)

Curiously the AMD processors tend to stack up better on the Linux benchmark suites.

This is probably because Linux benchmarks were compiled with GCC or Clang rather than the Intel compiler. The Intel compiler deliberately generates code that makes the compiled code run poorly on non-Intel processors. The code checks the CPU ID, and the code has two major branches: the good path, which Intel chips get to run, and the poor path, which other chips run.

http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49

The irony is that Intel, by investing heavily in fab technology, is about two generations ahead of everyone else, so they can make faster and/or lower-power parts than everyone else. This means they could be competing fairly and win.

But because Intel does evil things like making their compiler sabotage their competition, I refuse to buy Intel. They have lost my business. They don't care of course, because there aren't many like me who are paying attention and care enough to change their buying habits.

If you want the fastest possible desktop computer, pay the big bucks for a top-of-the-line i7 system. But if you merely want a very fast desktop computer that can play all the games, an AMD will do quite well, and will cost a bit less. So giving up Intel isn't a hard thing to do, really.

Its only/main real use will be DisplayPort.

Wow, for a "geek" site, Slashdot seems inordinately populated with techno-IDIOTS, who don't bother to KEEP UP on IN THE PIPELINE THUNDERBOLT PRODUCTS. And there is beginning to be interest shown by other companies, like Canon, AJA, Apogee, Sonnet, and others.

Actually Qualcomm wants them to be called "smartbooks".

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,9392.html

I'm highly surprised and intrigued the chip even worked at -242C (31K!) for a long time it was speculated in overclocking circles that weird things would happen to current silicon much below the temperature of liquid nitrogen. It does seem liquid helium has been tried a few times but this is the lowest reported temperature I have ever seen on a overclocked CPU. It might not mean much for people who don't care about overclocking but I think this is a significant achievement.

I'm also intrigued by the possibility this chip could have gone faster, it may have become bound by motherboard reference clock and multipliers at this speed. It's not uncommon for the motherboards ability to deliver current to become the limiting factor.
8ghz is reportedly the outright world record http://www.nordichardware.com/news,5505.html Although I think this was reset to 8.2ghz not long after.

Overclocking preview

Neat, it took like 20 seconds for the first world records to fall ...

What many seem to have neglected is that there is an evident problem with odd CPU multipliers. AMD has no support for "half" memory multipliers (4.5/5.5/6.5/etc), which means that you will actually not be able to run memories at their full potential when using processors with odd multipliers (7/9/11/etc):

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=3&skri velse=481

It is:

http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?page=15&skr ivelse=326

http://www.telefragged.com/reviews/quake3/

Look at the image
http://www.nordichardware.com/skrivelser_img/465/t empgraf.gif

See the big "C" at the end of the scale?

That is REALLY hot!.

But yes, the percentage is meaningless. They should have at least subracted out the ambient temperature which should have been 25-27 C giving a decrease in *temperature* of 26-27%

Further work would need to be done to determine the reduction in *thermal engergy* output in watts or BTUs.

Xen... I think the Yonah (Duo) has SSE3 which allowed Xen to run with unmodified OSes.

1.Install Linux
2.Install Xen
3.Install OSX and Windows
4.Never dual boot again.