Slashdot Mirror

Someone does, but it's not cheap (Pentium M chipset) and it plays Doom 3 like a slideshow. According to Intel's datasheet, the 915GM chipset has a TDP of 6.0 watts. The chipset's GMA 900 graphics displays 2048x1536 at 85 Hz.

I cannot be the only one sick of the jet engine noise and space heater performance.

Ya know, like an Mac Mini, only with high resolution.

That Aopen board is microATX, but the Mac mini look-alike that Slashdot covered uses the same chipset, so it should display 2048x1536.

Actually, ATI has been the WORST offender in this category, especially in the 9xx0 series of cards. For a simple example, the Radeon 9000, 9100, 9200 and 9250 are all DirectX 8.1 cards, and are all actually slower revamps of the Radeon 8500. This is contrary to the "9000" series numbering, which at the very least would imply these cards would have *some* defining new features.

True. I was not aware of that series of cards until you pointed it out.

But let's look at your examples, thay have issues too...

A 9600 is worse than a 9700. A 9600 Pro is worse than a 9700.

True, but is a 9600 XT faster than a 9700? The performance is closer than you'd think. IS there really a need for the 9600 XT when the 9700 already exists? ATI sure thought so.

No, the 9600XT performs worse than the 9700. Clickie!

A 9700 Pro is worse than a 9800, etc.

Not true.

9700 Pro: 325Mhz Core, 620MHz DDR memory.

9800: 310MHz Core, 580Mhz DDR memory.

There was little change in the core between 9700 and 9800, so the clock speeds can be directly compared.

Now admittedly, the 9800 is half a frame above the 9700 Pro, but that could just as easily be within Tom's margin of error considering the 9700 PRO beats the 9800 in several games, again, by only half a frame. Clock speed != better, as the 9800SE has a chipclock of 380 and memory clock of 675 and the 9800SE is a horrible card.

Unfortunately, if you take a look at the rest of the benchmarks in that article (which gives a good idea of all the cards up to that point) the numbers seem to be all over the place with some cards soundly beating others in one bench, and vise versa in another bench. The really wild cards are the 9500 PRO that beat out the 9800 SE on some of the benches and the 9800 SE that seems to be just an abysmal card routinely scoring lower than 9500 and 9600 cards.

This, of course, ignores the extremely annoying lower cost "128-bit" Radeon 9800 cards (which are not well marked), 9600 SE cards that are barely as capable in performance as a 9200, the 9550 series (introduced well after the 9500 was replaced by the 9600).

The 6200 is slower than the 6600. The 6600 GT is slower than the 6800. And now, the 7800 is faster than the 6800 Ultra. What's so confusing here?

Actually, ATI has been the WORST offender in this category, especially in the 9xx0 series of cards. For a simple example, the Radeon 9000, 9100, 9200 and 9250 are all DirectX 8.1 cards, and are all actually slower revamps of the Radeon 8500. This is contrary to the "9000" series numbering, which at the very least would imply these cards would have *some* defining new features.

True. I was not aware of that series of cards until you pointed it out.

But let's look at your examples, thay have issues too...

A 9600 is worse than a 9700. A 9600 Pro is worse than a 9700.

True, but is a 9600 XT faster than a 9700? The performance is closer than you'd think. IS there really a need for the 9600 XT when the 9700 already exists? ATI sure thought so.

No, the 9600XT performs worse than the 9700. Clickie!

A 9700 Pro is worse than a 9800, etc.

Not true.

9700 Pro: 325Mhz Core, 620MHz DDR memory.

9800: 310MHz Core, 580Mhz DDR memory.

There was little change in the core between 9700 and 9800, so the clock speeds can be directly compared.

Now admittedly, the 9800 is half a frame above the 9700 Pro, but that could just as easily be within Tom's margin of error considering the 9700 PRO beats the 9800 in several games, again, by only half a frame. Clock speed != better, as the 9800SE has a chipclock of 380 and memory clock of 675 and the 9800SE is a horrible card.

Unfortunately, if you take a look at the rest of the benchmarks in that article (which gives a good idea of all the cards up to that point) the numbers seem to be all over the place with some cards soundly beating others in one bench, and vise versa in another bench. The really wild cards are the 9500 PRO that beat out the 9800 SE on some of the benches and the 9800 SE that seems to be just an abysmal card routinely scoring lower than 9500 and 9600 cards.

This, of course, ignores the extremely annoying lower cost "128-bit" Radeon 9800 cards (which are not well marked), 9600 SE cards that are barely as capable in performance as a 9200, the 9550 series (introduced well after the 9500 was replaced by the 9600).

The 6200 is slower than the 6600. The 6600 GT is slower than the 6800. And now, the 7800 is faster than the 6800 Ultra. What's so confusing here?

The 7800 has it too.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050622/ nvidia_7800_gtx-04.html

Tom's also has a set of reviews and links available.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/200506221 /index.html/

If Apple sticks with Yonah, its customers will receive pretty much the most advanced processor in Intel's lineup. On the downside, Yonah will be one of the very few Intel processors that do not support 64-bit applications.

linky

My point was that Intel has not been behind AMD in memory bandwidth in recent memory. At most times, including right now, they are ahead of AMD in memory bandwidth. The parent (now super parent) poster was wrong in saying AMD was ahead.

Intel reached the memory bandwidth levels AMD is at right now almost 3 years ago with the 3.0GHz/800FSB Pentium 4.

Being stuck with DDR isn't a problem as far as performance. But right now memory (esp. Taiwanese) vendors are dropping their prices on DDR2 trying to accelerate the switch to DDR2 from DDR. This is presumably to get out from under the license fees they pay to Rambus for DDR. But regardless of the reasons, as DDR2 drops in price below DDR, many Athlon users are going to wish they could use DDR2.

As to your comments that memory manufacturers say DDR2 prices aren't going to drop, I could find nothing like that at all. Most news sources say DDR2 prices will drop below DDR prices in the 2nd half of the year. More specific news says things like I mentioned above. http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050609_0654 49.html.

As fast as having your own onboard memory controller is, it does stifle innovation as far as what memory can be used on motherboards completely. So you had better be SURE your bet is right. I'm not 100% sure AMD's is.

I dunno about Intel copying AMD's plans. I haven't heard anything of it. To do so requires adding at least 160 pins to the CPU package. And it means you can't do multi-chip multi-processing.

As to your comments that this means that I/O traffic doesn't tie up the FSB, you are incorrect. When you do I/O, the data doesn't go directly to the CPU (into the CPU registers), it goes into RAM. And AMD has the memory controller on the CPU, so that means that when you are moving data from the disk to the RAM, the data on an AMD has to go into the CPU on the HT bus, and out on the FSB (RAM) pins. So I/Os still tie up the FSB.

On an Intel, the data never even goes to the CPU, it comes in the south bridge (ATA, including SATA, most other stuff) or directly into the north bridge (GigE), and then goes out on the RAM pins (the magic of DMA). So there's no more or less competition for memory bandwidth in an Intel than on an AMD.

Essentially, AMD just moved the northbridge into the CPU. Why this decreases the memory latency, I'm not sure. I'm not saying it doesn't either, as the numbers seem to indicate it does.

I dunno if Intel is going to copy AMD. Right now, Intel is busy moving the GPU onto the northbridge to save money (esp. in laptops). That means Intel probably isn't going to move the northbridge onto the CPU, at least not on all systems.

According to http://www.sgi.com/products/remarketed/onyx2/tech_ specs.html and http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020625/ index.html let's compare some specs

IR Pixel fill, smooth, Z 224M to 448M

Pixel fill, textured, AA, Z 156M to 312M

Polygons/sec 10.9 M

Memory 64MB + 80-160MB

In 3D Mark 2001 SE (which is *lower* than theoretical numbers) Parhelia scores

FR Smooth 751 MP

FR Textured 2478! MP

Polygons/s 11.1M (with 8 lights!)

Memory 256 MB

not to mention a nice new Athlon will be an order of magnitude faster than whatever MIPS processor is in there. 3-D technology moves very quickly...

Of course you can. It's an option in the task manager. See here for an example.

Check out this Tomshardware link

http://www17.tomshardware.com/howto/20050504/

Cringely's mascot is outdated. It should be this instead. By the way, has anyone here checked out Tom's Hardware's article on Pentium M performance? If you haven't, read it now. You will see the real reason why Apple wants Intel chips.

clock for clock the pentium M wipes the floor with even AMD.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.htm l

And I love amd, I suspect AMD will still always have the best price/performance ratio which is why I go with them anyways.

From one AMD fanboy to another: Puh-leez. I'm actually glad they went with Intel. Intel is actually getting cheaper than AMD, and they don't have the chip yield problems of AMD. Also, and I may be unique in this, but my AMD chips run hotter than the Intel chips I've seen. Not a whole lot, but enough to justify AMD being passed over by a computer maker that wants an entire computer in the space of a 10-disc CD changer cartridge. AMD historically has very poor (as in nonexistant) thermal management.

Also, if the Mac really is what video editors use most of the time, Intel is a good choice. The P4 regularly beats AMD chips in video and audio encoding. The thing AMD chips really excel at is gaming, a testament to the great on-die memory controller of the A64. As I've seen several million times repeated on Slashdot, Macs aren't sold by their FarCry timedemo speeds.

From one AMD fanboy to another: Puh-leez. I'm actually glad they went with Intel. Intel is actually getting cheaper than AMD, and they don't have the chip yield problems of AMD. Also, and I may be unique in this, but my AMD chips run hotter than the Intel chips I've seen. Not a whole lot, but enough to justify AMD being passed over by a computer maker that wants an entire computer in the space of a 10-disc CD changer cartridge. AMD historically has very poor (as in nonexistant) thermal management.

Also, if the Mac really is what video editors use most of the time, Intel is a good choice. The P4 regularly beats AMD chips in video and audio encoding. The thing AMD chips really excel at is gaming, a testament to the great on-die memory controller of the A64. As I've seen several million times repeated on Slashdot, Macs aren't sold by their FarCry timedemo speeds.

Here are just a few references pointing out the real percentage of computers infected with spyware:
80%
8 out of 10
88%
Or, just search it.
So, 5 years to admit to the problem as it was 3-ish years ago.

Because there's 500,000 people willing to play it?
Meanwhile, Sony announced a few days ago that they have shipped 90 million PS2s and over 800 million games.

Tom's Hardware has some interesting benchmarks with a Dothan in a desktop system with a halfway decent memory system.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4- 21.html

But INTEL? They're hotter, slower and more expensive than AMD.

That's only true for the Pentium IV and remember all of Intel's plans involve a more Pentium M like architecture. Ye have so little faith in Mr. Apple. If you are unimpressed with the Pentium M, you might want to read this. It's good tech and AMD doesn't have it yet. AMD is kicking arse in the pure speed war, but it has barely even fired a shot in the speed/watt war. We don't even know how interested AMD is in competing in that particular battleground. CnQ is good but not as good as a Pentium M when it comes to power usage.

Ghosting has been significantly reduced in the past year. OverDrive panels Viewsonic VX924 (faster response, more noise)

Ghosting has been significantly reduced in the past year. OverDrive panels Viewsonic VX924 (faster response, more noise)

I recently starting commuting to Manhattan, and like many straphangers*, I want to listen to anything but the preachers and beggers on the subway. I was about to buy an iPod mini, but when I saw how much the Archos Gmini 400 does, I was blown away. I'm a photographer, so I have a bunch of high capacity compact flash cards lying around that I could actually use with the Gmini, which has a CF reader.

Archos Gmini review: http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20041021/

* Straphanger: slang for a subway rider. NYC subways used to have leather straps that riders could "hang" from in order to not fall when the car started moving. They've all been replaced by metal bars.

As you can see from this white paper. AMD indicates that...

Yes, I have consulted AMD's documentation on the subject. But TDP does not equal normal (or even max) real-world draw. It means that if you could somehow saturate every functional unit on the chip, you would draw that much. But in the real world, you can't come anywhere near that.


Huh? Do you have a reference?

Well, I can't find where I read 7W specifically, but a comparison on Tom's Hardware gives very similar numbers... 3.2W in the lowest power state, 10.8W idle but not in C&Q, and 28.8W at 100% load. Not an exact match, but not all that far off from the numbers I originally said (with a bit of fudge-factor room thrown in).

However, I could (and have) found other reviews that give totally different numbers, and of course AMD's own whitepaper disagrees, as you point out. My own numbers unfortunately include the whole system, but extrapolating from that low of 3.2W, would give me a mean of 9.2W, and a max of 20.2W. That mean and max sound rather low, however (the mean in particular, if non-C&Q idle draws 10.8W), so I have to suspect the numbers at Tom's don't quite hit the mark, but come close enough.

People can also check out this article for an excellent primer on its use.

While over there don't miss Bryan Cassell's excellent article comparing the Athlon to Pentiums for 'quiet power'. He points out that Intel's TDP numbers are not maximums, but that AMD's numbers are. A very interesting read.

I am quite surprised that no one has leaked a copy of AMD's own PSTcheck as mentioned in this article. I have searched for it but to no avail. I would love to be able to play around with that one.

I take it you didn't try to play doom 3 when it came out! I had just bought a $250 ati AIW 9600 XT 128mb.... its only playable at 800 x 600 resolution on my pc. (dual xeon 2 ghz, 1 gb of ram)

Well, then, exercise a little self control and wait a few months before playing the game. If you believe this chart, a GeForce 6600 GT can play Doom 3 at 1280x1024 at 60 FPS. That's for $150. Plus, by buying Doom 3 now, you get to spend $40 instead of $65.

Besides, exactly how shitty does it look at 800x600? That's still as good or better than the resolution you'll be getting on the TV hooked up to your console.

I never said the artivle was beneath my level. Highschool geography above my level too, I know none. I do know some basics about shampoos and deodorants but would not be offended by a decent article on either.

BUT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, not on Slashdot. If you want articles on hardware go to Tom's Hardware, Anandtech or any other of a number of sites.

Kudos to CmdrTaco for being one of the fathers of Slashdot but IMO this is still WRONG.

I found this easy explanation of horizontal refresh rate. For shutter glass use it is probably the most important spec. I am currently using a Philips 201B (which I don't recommend) I bought in the 90s. It has a 115khz maximum horizontal refresh rate (scanning frequency). I see that as the absolute minimum for sequential stereo display. You should really be looking for 120khz and higher

The Samsung 1100DF has a 121khz horizontal refresh rate and is only $449+$35 shipping at newegg. I'd recommend that one. According to the tomshardware article 121,000/1024*0.95 = 112 hz for a refresh rate (at 1280x1024) or 56 hz in sequential stereo mode. Ouch. That doesn't quite make it, does it? Anyone know of a currently manufactured monitor with a higher horizontal refresh rate?

I also use stereo on SGI's Sony GDM CRT monitors and Viewsonic PF221 CRT monitors using Nuvision 3D's technology. They are about 1/3 of the price of CrystalEyes solutions and Nuvision3D glasses work with CrystalEyes stereo emitters too. The glasses are lighter too.

The problem with all these fancy schmancy LCD stereo displays is that they're made just for stereo (i.e. they look like shit if you try to use them for regular viewing, see this article). So why not get a nice CRT monitor (for no more than $600) with a larger viewable area that does regular viewing and stereo rather than an LCD that does stereo for probably more than triple the price?

Soon to be untrue. Viewsonic already released an 8ms monitor (15 ms max, in any situation). It's an 8-bit panel and does the full 16.7 million colors. See http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050526/ index.html

You stated:

"With that said, however, I'd rather have to deal with a mountainous behemoth that looked good in games than one that was light and looked like shit."

This led me to believe you had a problem with the colors (which older LCDs definitely had a problem with). As for speed, check these out:

http://www7.graphics.tomshardware.com/display/2005 0526/index.html

They are suitable for gaming (even FPS type games). They can be had for under $450. You might say $450 is a lot for a monitor these days when you can pick up a 19" CRT for less that $200. However, the LCD will have better color reproduction than your pos CRT, MUCH longer life, the colors won't be mostly faded out 5 years after you buy it, you won't have to spend an hour trying to get the image shape correct, it won't be distorted around the edges, it won't use anywhere near as much electricity, it won't weigh a ton, and it will definitely be much sexier. To me, it's easily worth the extra cash. You do the math and see if you don't change your mind.

Between the Athlon 64 X2 and the Pentium D it is pretty clear who the winner is: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core _athlon-20.html

Meanwhile, Intel's desktop dual core chips seem to offer much more aggressive pricing at this time. AMD's lowest price dual core chip, the X2 4200 is almost twice as expensive as Intel's lowest cost dual core processor. However, an interview with three AMD execs on PCPerspective.com claims that "AMD would eventually have lower priced Athlon X2 processors via the waterfall effect in the future".

Then you would guess wrong.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/index.htm l

You're probably thinking of Intel's offerings, which are not compatible with the current crop of intel-based motherboards out there.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4 _570-20.html

So I'm guessing you own the Athlon 64 3000+ Winchester core CNQ?

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4- 19.html

As you can see the P4 based workstation can consume up to 250W on cpu-only tests (no graphics). It's a dead-end.

...32 graphic chips!!!
From TomsHardware http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050526_1558 43.html

I will live on bread and water from now on to afford a system with this... in the far future! :-)

I'd searched the UL database for the part number, but they listed as "HPU-XX150,180,200,230,235,250,275,280,300,320,330 ,350,380,400,425,430,450,475,480,500,525,550,580,6 25,650,680 and 70", instead of " HPU-3S350", etc. So they didn't show up in a search.

Checking with Companies House, the UK business registrar, we find "HIGH PERFORMANCE ENTERPRISE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY", with a name change from " HIGH PERFORMANCE PC LIMITED" on 30/03/2005, which explains the name discrepancy. (There are about 50 companies named "High Performance ..." in the UK.)

So they actually are legitimate.

There are so many phony power supplies out there that you do have to check. Read this Tom's Hardware article about power supply burnout.

Not sure if this is the same thing, But it is a huge cooler from Zalman, and this link works!

Well, it seems there is more than one problem. You're right about the platform-independent nature of getting users to install trojan horse software. UNIX based systems can't help that problem much, although they can limit the resulting damage in some cases.

The plague of adware and spyware infecting some significant percentage of pc systems is a separate issue that pretty clearly affects Windows, but not Mac OS X or Linux. FireFox users on Windows seem to receive some protection from this plague, too, so perhaps this issue is also platform independent, but vendor dependent.

Doom 3 is more graphically complex/intense than Half-Life 2 at times. And this is all we have today - games don't even have realistic soft shadows yet. This is an 'investment to the future'. Also, some games actually play differently the higher your frames. Also, things like AntiAliasing and Ansiotropic filtering. Compare This. The difference between SLI and non-SLI is huge. If you're a graphics card whore (aka 1600x1200x6AAx16AF), this is the way to go. Now, imagine buying one of these things now. Next year, of course it won't be the fastest thing on the market, but it'll play whatever is out there at blazing speeds. Of course, the kind of person who would invest in this might upgrade in 6 months anyways.

While the poster successfully pimps hothardware.com, let us even things out by linking to some other reivews.

Anandtech:
P4 670
PD 820
Tom's Hardware on the PD 840s and such

Pentium M on the desktop? Please?

Read Tom's Hardware Guide for some more info.

...power. Why is Intel consistently a prime waste of power? (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_cor e_athlon-19.html)

When wattage is spiking that high, I'd rather use the AMD processor solely because of the ever-increasing demand and cost of electricity. So not only are they cost-efficient and energy-efficient, but they're also faster and more durable. In the past 4 years, I've burned up (plugged it in, turned it on) a handful of Intel chips just because they were defective (purchased at various stores) and lost 1 AMD to a direct lightning strike.

to those of you wondering about the cpu's being able to be produced for the xbox360 and G5's.

this is from Tom's Hardwares site (http://www7.tomshardware.com/game/200505121/xbox_ 360-05.html\

"With specs this impressive, it's easy to see why a few of us wondered how they planned to make a profit, given that they were already operating at a loss as a result of hardware costs for the current platform. "This time, we own the silicon [chip designs]. We can have [the chips] manufactured at different foundries to keep costs down."

Doesn't sound to me like they need to wait on IBM to make anything. They can have the lowest bidder make cpu's for them. Not to mention, later down the road, other parts of the system might end up on new chips (like they did with the original playstation and the newer PSOne) to keep costs down ever farther.

Probably the best review, and site with pictures would be at tomshardware, http://www.tomshardware.com/game/200505121/index.h tml some of the features of the new xbox are amazing, as well as insights as of the origins of the new x-box. Apparantly the old xbox was just marketing to get this thing on the market. The most imressive thing about the new xbox though isn't its cool design, but the fact that it was designed entirely for the ease of the user. At its unveiling (at which reporters from tomshardware were present) representitives plugged in a RIO mp3 player and played streaming music, then also plugged in a PSP, yes a competitors product and it worked over the xbox. Also it runs series of custom Power PC processors. A total of six separate threads are in the base unit, providing for 6 seperate applications to be running at once (like enemy AI, friendly AI, music, etc.) These are just some of its great features, and there are many more. (btw if you haven't guessed yet I am a huge xbox fan)

Well, if you do something like what was done over at Tom's Hardware Guide, it wouldn't matter all that much about the resolution, and most XGA displays can do multiple resolutions (though at times, it only shrinks the actual image in order to accurately reproduce the desired image in the resolution you desire.)

Try here

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

Not everything you want, but a good start.

The best example of what you're looking at that i've found is at http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html

It's an interactive chart of all major processors available now and plenty that aren't available, it's a good idea to compare what you might have not and what an upgrade could do for you.

After liquid metal and liquid nitrogen, here comes dry ice! What's next?

I just purchased a socket 775 PCI Express MB with the 915 chipset. It only has 3 PCI slots with 2 PCI express slots. However, about the only thing that it doesn't have is on-board video.

I plan to use the onboard ethernet, perhaps audio, and such.

While Tom's Hardware Guide has a comparison chart: http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20020422/c hipset-01.html

it appears to be somewhat dated.

That is due to the advertisement content of websites. With following installed extensions: Download manager Tweak, Nuke Anything, x, Tabbrowser Extension, BugMeNot,Objection, Configuration Mania, fireFTP and loading http://www.tomshardware.com/ main page in four tabs, http://www.vivisimo.com/ search engine, and this slashdot article page memory usage on my own system less than 39030K.