Slashdot Mirror

Not loud at all, you have to use one of these

The Creative Nomad Zen NX doesn't look the same to me as the Dell DJ.

From the press release, I understand the iPod will be the same as the existing 3rd generation iPod, ust with dark "HP Blue" color instead of white (which should look sharp with the chrome back).

The picture on the site says 'patent pending' ... hm? What about Silverado? I have one of those for a couple of years now. You can track it as far back as February 2001.

Tom's Hardware has an interesting recent article on this chip too. Lots of benchmarks.

Found this little gem in the article: It kept our CPU running in the mid -40C range while gaming at default clock speeds.

Funny I was just reading an article over on Tom's Hardware guide about that

The article benchmarks three different boards with integrated graphics solutions (Intel i865G , nForce2, & SIS 651) using both the integrated graphics hardware, and a $50 graphics card.

Unsurprisingly, in 3D applications, all have quite poor performance, only the nForce 2 system has acceptable performance with even older games at low resolution.

More important to your question, They also run comparative benchmarks using windows office applications, with both the integrated graphics, and the $50 card. The graphs clearly show, that there is no effective difference in performance, and that the benchmark results are largely CPU bound.

In concussion, I would not expect integrated graphics to hut general computing performance. Though I would of course check that the graphics performance is adequate, as it may not be possible to update in the future.

Funny I was just reading an article over on Tom's Hardware guide about that

The article benchmarks three different boards with integrated graphics solutions (Intel i865G , nForce2, & SIS 651) using both the integrated graphics hardware, and a $50 graphics card.

Unsurprisingly, in 3D applications, all have quite poor performance, only the nForce 2 system has acceptable performance with even older games at low resolution.

More important to your question, They also run comparative benchmarks using windows office applications, with both the integrated graphics, and the $50 card. The graphs clearly show, that there is no effective difference in performance, and that the benchmark results are largely CPU bound.

In concussion, I would not expect integrated graphics to hut general computing performance. Though I would of course check that the graphics performance is adequate, as it may not be possible to update in the future.

Funny I was just reading an article over on Tom's Hardware guide about that

The article benchmarks three different boards with integrated graphics solutions (Intel i865G , nForce2, & SIS 651) using both the integrated graphics hardware, and a $50 graphics card.

Unsurprisingly, in 3D applications, all have quite poor performance, only the nForce 2 system has acceptable performance with even older games at low resolution.

More important to your question, They also run comparative benchmarks using windows office applications, with both the integrated graphics, and the $50 card. The graphs clearly show, that there is no effective difference in performance, and that the benchmark results are largely CPU bound.

In concussion, I would not expect integrated graphics to hut general computing performance. Though I would of course check that the graphics performance is adequate, as it may not be possible to update in the future.

Funny I was just reading an article over on Tom's Hardware guide about that

The article benchmarks three different boards with integrated graphics solutions (Intel i865G , nForce2, & SIS 651) using both the integrated graphics hardware, and a $50 graphics card.

Unsurprisingly, in 3D applications, all have quite poor performance, only the nForce 2 system has acceptable performance with even older games at low resolution.

More important to your question, They also run comparative benchmarks using windows office applications, with both the integrated graphics, and the $50 card. The graphs clearly show, that there is no effective difference in performance, and that the benchmark results are largely CPU bound.

In concussion, I would not expect integrated graphics to hut general computing performance. Though I would of course check that the graphics performance is adequate, as it may not be possible to update in the future.

But seriously, you may want to take a look at this Tom's Hardware article detailing the weaknesses of an integrated chip.

For those looking for the quick answer, I'll do my best to summarize. First off, since integrated graphics tend to be low cost solutions, transistor counts are nowhere near current add-in boards. From the article, Nvidia's FX5200 has 47 million transistors (FX5600=80 million and FX5900=130 million), while their onboard solution (equivalent to GeForce4 MX440) has only 27 million.

Then, there's the question of memory bandwidth. Dual channel DDR 400 has a peak of 6.4GB/s, which is shared, while an equivalent GeForce4 MX440 would have a dedicated 8GB/s.

Now, to your question. Does this consume a ton of bandwidth and affect performance? Well, that would all depend on what you're doing with it.

If you're running 3D games and the like, then both performance and bandwidth will be an issue and limit your framerates. Comparing the previous review and this review of add in boards, shows about a 25% reduction in framerate (at 1024x768) between an add in GeForce4 MX440 and an NForce2 integrated chipset in UT2003, and an almost 40% reduction in 3DMark 2001. Since the machines were not identical, don't take the numbers as gospel, but they were similar enough to make a meaningful comparison IMHO.

That being said, for normal 2D work, bandwidth utilization is negligible and shouldn't seriously impact performance as shown by this SysMark 2002 test. AFAIK, this doesn't take into account extremely intensive RAM->CPU loads, but I wouldn't expect results to vary significantly, since memory requirements for 2D work are relatively low.

Be warned though, that Tom's Hardware did note image quality issues with most of the integrated chips-which they theorized was the result oflow cost manafacturing, not a limit of the technology itself. This theory is bolstered by the fact that their low cost add in card (Radeon 9200) suffered the same problems.

But seriously, you may want to take a look at this Tom's Hardware article detailing the weaknesses of an integrated chip.

For those looking for the quick answer, I'll do my best to summarize. First off, since integrated graphics tend to be low cost solutions, transistor counts are nowhere near current add-in boards. From the article, Nvidia's FX5200 has 47 million transistors (FX5600=80 million and FX5900=130 million), while their onboard solution (equivalent to GeForce4 MX440) has only 27 million.

Then, there's the question of memory bandwidth. Dual channel DDR 400 has a peak of 6.4GB/s, which is shared, while an equivalent GeForce4 MX440 would have a dedicated 8GB/s.

Now, to your question. Does this consume a ton of bandwidth and affect performance? Well, that would all depend on what you're doing with it.

If you're running 3D games and the like, then both performance and bandwidth will be an issue and limit your framerates. Comparing the previous review and this review of add in boards, shows about a 25% reduction in framerate (at 1024x768) between an add in GeForce4 MX440 and an NForce2 integrated chipset in UT2003, and an almost 40% reduction in 3DMark 2001. Since the machines were not identical, don't take the numbers as gospel, but they were similar enough to make a meaningful comparison IMHO.

That being said, for normal 2D work, bandwidth utilization is negligible and shouldn't seriously impact performance as shown by this SysMark 2002 test. AFAIK, this doesn't take into account extremely intensive RAM->CPU loads, but I wouldn't expect results to vary significantly, since memory requirements for 2D work are relatively low.

Be warned though, that Tom's Hardware did note image quality issues with most of the integrated chips-which they theorized was the result oflow cost manafacturing, not a limit of the technology itself. This theory is bolstered by the fact that their low cost add in card (Radeon 9200) suffered the same problems.

But seriously, you may want to take a look at this Tom's Hardware article detailing the weaknesses of an integrated chip.

For those looking for the quick answer, I'll do my best to summarize. First off, since integrated graphics tend to be low cost solutions, transistor counts are nowhere near current add-in boards. From the article, Nvidia's FX5200 has 47 million transistors (FX5600=80 million and FX5900=130 million), while their onboard solution (equivalent to GeForce4 MX440) has only 27 million.

Then, there's the question of memory bandwidth. Dual channel DDR 400 has a peak of 6.4GB/s, which is shared, while an equivalent GeForce4 MX440 would have a dedicated 8GB/s.

Now, to your question. Does this consume a ton of bandwidth and affect performance? Well, that would all depend on what you're doing with it.

If you're running 3D games and the like, then both performance and bandwidth will be an issue and limit your framerates. Comparing the previous review and this review of add in boards, shows about a 25% reduction in framerate (at 1024x768) between an add in GeForce4 MX440 and an NForce2 integrated chipset in UT2003, and an almost 40% reduction in 3DMark 2001. Since the machines were not identical, don't take the numbers as gospel, but they were similar enough to make a meaningful comparison IMHO.

That being said, for normal 2D work, bandwidth utilization is negligible and shouldn't seriously impact performance as shown by this SysMark 2002 test. AFAIK, this doesn't take into account extremely intensive RAM->CPU loads, but I wouldn't expect results to vary significantly, since memory requirements for 2D work are relatively low.

Be warned though, that Tom's Hardware did note image quality issues with most of the integrated chips-which they theorized was the result oflow cost manafacturing, not a limit of the technology itself. This theory is bolstered by the fact that their low cost add in card (Radeon 9200) suffered the same problems.

> $300.. my graphic card alone cost that much.. getting ripped off from Nvidia and ATI here.

Who modded this insightful? It is obviously a troll.... if you are paying $300 for a graphics card, you are getting a premium product, at a premium price.

Why should this be surprising?

$300 NV/ATI offerings are years ahead of anything S3 has to offer. Here is a massive benchmark that includes (presumably) the best S3 has to offer.

If you want something superior to that S3, look at NV/ATI's offerings in the $100-200 range. There's pleny of options for any need.

If you want a recommendation, based on current market prices, I would go with either a 9200 (for casual gaming/video) or a 9600 pro (for moderate gaming).

9800 would be a step up if you have a need for it, but really only necessary if you want to do 1600x resolution with the latest games.

With that out of the way, honestly how much networking stuff is there to cover? I seriously doubt they needed to get a new domain for this. All they can review are routers, hubs, switches, WAP, and network cards, nothing nearly as interesting as mobos, processors, or video cards.

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980710 /index.html
DRAM Performance: Latency vs. Bandwidth Created:
July 10, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980729 /index.html
Performance Impact of Low Latency DRAM Created:
July 29, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814 /index.html
Performance Impact of Rambus Created:
August 14, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923 /index.html
Rambus on Alternate Platforms Created:
September 23, 1998 By: Bert McComas

...and touring the world demonstrating the Micron "Samurai" DDR chipset; a chipset that would never be built, and which was intended only to divert mindshare from Intel and RDRAM:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19991216 /index.html

http://www.ebnonline.com/digest/story/OEG19991110S 0054

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991110S0028

While at the same time he was colluding with the industry to limit RDRAM production, coordinate their lies, and provide some cover from antitrust prosecution [From the FTC-Rambus case docket at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm]:

1567. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an "exclusive" seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM (Rambus memory). (RX 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). Mr. McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Mr. Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064).

1568. Mr. McComas's invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (RX 1138 at 1). A few days later, Desi Rhoden (now Chairman of the Board of JEDEC) sent an email to Mr. Tabrizi about the attendance restrictions. (RX 1149; Tabrizi, Tr. 9064-65). Mr. Rhoden's e-mail stated that he knew McComas and that his "main focus appears to make sure that Rambus and Intel do not attend and therefore has been very restrictive on who can attend. If he says everyone except Rambus and Intel, then it is restraint of trade; while if he says only suppliers, then most of who he wants can attend without there being a charge of restraint of trade." (RX 1149 at 1).

1569. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, Mr. McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAMs was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement" (RX 1482 at 12), and he stated that RDRAM "deepens [the manufacturer's] financial dilemma." (RX 1482 at 26). As a "possible strateg[y]," Mr. McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers "tape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in the hopes of "resist[ing] popular deployment" of RDRAM. (RX 1482 at 34-35).

***************

1571. Mr. McComas spoke at the June 25, 1998 SLDRAM Executive Summit about the problems faced by DRAM manufacturers. One of the "tactical" problems he identified was how to "Manage Price Competition, Profitability." (RX 1188 at 1). He also talked about how man

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980710 /index.html
DRAM Performance: Latency vs. Bandwidth Created:
July 10, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980729 /index.html
Performance Impact of Low Latency DRAM Created:
July 29, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814 /index.html
Performance Impact of Rambus Created:
August 14, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923 /index.html
Rambus on Alternate Platforms Created:
September 23, 1998 By: Bert McComas

...and touring the world demonstrating the Micron "Samurai" DDR chipset; a chipset that would never be built, and which was intended only to divert mindshare from Intel and RDRAM:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19991216 /index.html

http://www.ebnonline.com/digest/story/OEG19991110S 0054

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991110S0028

While at the same time he was colluding with the industry to limit RDRAM production, coordinate their lies, and provide some cover from antitrust prosecution [From the FTC-Rambus case docket at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm]:

1567. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an "exclusive" seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM (Rambus memory). (RX 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). Mr. McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Mr. Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064).

1568. Mr. McComas's invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (RX 1138 at 1). A few days later, Desi Rhoden (now Chairman of the Board of JEDEC) sent an email to Mr. Tabrizi about the attendance restrictions. (RX 1149; Tabrizi, Tr. 9064-65). Mr. Rhoden's e-mail stated that he knew McComas and that his "main focus appears to make sure that Rambus and Intel do not attend and therefore has been very restrictive on who can attend. If he says everyone except Rambus and Intel, then it is restraint of trade; while if he says only suppliers, then most of who he wants can attend without there being a charge of restraint of trade." (RX 1149 at 1).

1569. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, Mr. McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAMs was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement" (RX 1482 at 12), and he stated that RDRAM "deepens [the manufacturer's] financial dilemma." (RX 1482 at 26). As a "possible strateg[y]," Mr. McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers "tape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in the hopes of "resist[ing] popular deployment" of RDRAM. (RX 1482 at 34-35).

***************

1571. Mr. McComas spoke at the June 25, 1998 SLDRAM Executive Summit about the problems faced by DRAM manufacturers. One of the "tactical" problems he identified was how to "Manage Price Competition, Profitability." (RX 1188 at 1). He also talked about how man

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980710 /index.html
DRAM Performance: Latency vs. Bandwidth Created:
July 10, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980729 /index.html
Performance Impact of Low Latency DRAM Created:
July 29, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814 /index.html
Performance Impact of Rambus Created:
August 14, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923 /index.html
Rambus on Alternate Platforms Created:
September 23, 1998 By: Bert McComas

...and touring the world demonstrating the Micron "Samurai" DDR chipset; a chipset that would never be built, and which was intended only to divert mindshare from Intel and RDRAM:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19991216 /index.html

http://www.ebnonline.com/digest/story/OEG19991110S 0054

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991110S0028

While at the same time he was colluding with the industry to limit RDRAM production, coordinate their lies, and provide some cover from antitrust prosecution [From the FTC-Rambus case docket at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm]:

1567. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an "exclusive" seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM (Rambus memory). (RX 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). Mr. McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Mr. Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064).

1568. Mr. McComas's invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (RX 1138 at 1). A few days later, Desi Rhoden (now Chairman of the Board of JEDEC) sent an email to Mr. Tabrizi about the attendance restrictions. (RX 1149; Tabrizi, Tr. 9064-65). Mr. Rhoden's e-mail stated that he knew McComas and that his "main focus appears to make sure that Rambus and Intel do not attend and therefore has been very restrictive on who can attend. If he says everyone except Rambus and Intel, then it is restraint of trade; while if he says only suppliers, then most of who he wants can attend without there being a charge of restraint of trade." (RX 1149 at 1).

1569. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, Mr. McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAMs was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement" (RX 1482 at 12), and he stated that RDRAM "deepens [the manufacturer's] financial dilemma." (RX 1482 at 26). As a "possible strateg[y]," Mr. McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers "tape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in the hopes of "resist[ing] popular deployment" of RDRAM. (RX 1482 at 34-35).

***************

1571. Mr. McComas spoke at the June 25, 1998 SLDRAM Executive Summit about the problems faced by DRAM manufacturers. One of the "tactical" problems he identified was how to "Manage Price Competition, Profitability." (RX 1188 at 1). He also talked about how man

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980710 /index.html
DRAM Performance: Latency vs. Bandwidth Created:
July 10, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980729 /index.html
Performance Impact of Low Latency DRAM Created:
July 29, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814 /index.html
Performance Impact of Rambus Created:
August 14, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923 /index.html
Rambus on Alternate Platforms Created:
September 23, 1998 By: Bert McComas

...and touring the world demonstrating the Micron "Samurai" DDR chipset; a chipset that would never be built, and which was intended only to divert mindshare from Intel and RDRAM:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19991216 /index.html

http://www.ebnonline.com/digest/story/OEG19991110S 0054

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991110S0028

While at the same time he was colluding with the industry to limit RDRAM production, coordinate their lies, and provide some cover from antitrust prosecution [From the FTC-Rambus case docket at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm]:

1567. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an "exclusive" seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM (Rambus memory). (RX 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). Mr. McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Mr. Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064).

1568. Mr. McComas's invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (RX 1138 at 1). A few days later, Desi Rhoden (now Chairman of the Board of JEDEC) sent an email to Mr. Tabrizi about the attendance restrictions. (RX 1149; Tabrizi, Tr. 9064-65). Mr. Rhoden's e-mail stated that he knew McComas and that his "main focus appears to make sure that Rambus and Intel do not attend and therefore has been very restrictive on who can attend. If he says everyone except Rambus and Intel, then it is restraint of trade; while if he says only suppliers, then most of who he wants can attend without there being a charge of restraint of trade." (RX 1149 at 1).

1569. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, Mr. McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAMs was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement" (RX 1482 at 12), and he stated that RDRAM "deepens [the manufacturer's] financial dilemma." (RX 1482 at 26). As a "possible strateg[y]," Mr. McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers "tape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in the hopes of "resist[ing] popular deployment" of RDRAM. (RX 1482 at 34-35).

***************

1571. Mr. McComas spoke at the June 25, 1998 SLDRAM Executive Summit about the problems faced by DRAM manufacturers. One of the "tactical" problems he identified was how to "Manage Price Competition, Profitability." (RX 1188 at 1). He also talked about how man

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980710 /index.html
DRAM Performance: Latency vs. Bandwidth Created:
July 10, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980729 /index.html
Performance Impact of Low Latency DRAM Created:
July 29, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980814 /index.html
Performance Impact of Rambus Created:
August 14, 1998 By: Bert McComas

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19980923 /index.html
Rambus on Alternate Platforms Created:
September 23, 1998 By: Bert McComas

...and touring the world demonstrating the Micron "Samurai" DDR chipset; a chipset that would never be built, and which was intended only to divert mindshare from Intel and RDRAM:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/19991216 /index.html

http://www.ebnonline.com/digest/story/OEG19991110S 0054

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991110S0028

While at the same time he was colluding with the industry to limit RDRAM production, coordinate their lies, and provide some cover from antitrust prosecution [From the FTC-Rambus case docket at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9302/index.htm]:

1567. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an "exclusive" seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM (Rambus memory). (RX 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). Mr. McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Mr. Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064).

1568. Mr. McComas's invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (RX 1138 at 1). A few days later, Desi Rhoden (now Chairman of the Board of JEDEC) sent an email to Mr. Tabrizi about the attendance restrictions. (RX 1149; Tabrizi, Tr. 9064-65). Mr. Rhoden's e-mail stated that he knew McComas and that his "main focus appears to make sure that Rambus and Intel do not attend and therefore has been very restrictive on who can attend. If he says everyone except Rambus and Intel, then it is restraint of trade; while if he says only suppliers, then most of who he wants can attend without there being a charge of restraint of trade." (RX 1149 at 1).

1569. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, Mr. McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAMs was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement" (RX 1482 at 12), and he stated that RDRAM "deepens [the manufacturer's] financial dilemma." (RX 1482 at 26). As a "possible strateg[y]," Mr. McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers "tape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in the hopes of "resist[ing] popular deployment" of RDRAM. (RX 1482 at 34-35).

***************

1571. Mr. McComas spoke at the June 25, 1998 SLDRAM Executive Summit about the problems faced by DRAM manufacturers. One of the "tactical" problems he identified was how to "Manage Price Competition, Profitability." (RX 1188 at 1). He also talked about how man

Have you even read the benchmarks THG between the P4 and the Athlon XP 64/64 FX they did after it was released? They show how well the Athlon 64 chips do against the higher-clocked P4's, and consistenly recommend AMD's as more bang for your buck.

Are you talking about this article?: AMD's Athlon 64 Has Arrived: the Athlon 64 FX and Athlon 64 (and Intel's P4 Extreme) Reviewed

First, there's no mention of "more bang for your buck" in said article.

And while they do "show how well the Athlon 64 chips do against the higher-clocked P4's", they summarize it as such:

"Summary: The P4 3.2 EE wins 32 times, the Athlon 64 FX-51 15 times - an uncertain 64-bit future for AMD"

It reads like they're heralding AMD's demise!

What does this mean:
Before we got down to our actual record attempt, we checked the loading capacity of the materials and individual components. To do this, we placed the entire test construction in a polystyrene shell and installed it. ( source)

I don't get the part about testing the loading capacity. What is that? And how do you test it by placing in in polystyrene?

Thanks!

Sivaram Velauthapillai

With just weeks to go to Christmas, the THG crew got together to offer our loyal readers and especially the hardcore geeks among us something really special. Our brainstorming session quickly lead to extreme overclocking.

This might be a little off-topic, but the ZyXEL ZyAIR B-4000 has come in handy for a number of small wireless POPs I've talked to. Basically, it's a self-contained AP / billing / access control system that's available for ~$700. There's a Tom's Hardware review here detailing a bit about how it works. In short, you program the buttons on the front for whatever time/price you want, and the receipt printer spits out a serialized receipt containing a password which will allow the user's machine to access the network for X period of time. Nice and simple for non-techies to operate.

I'd imagine that if you did a $5/day or /week this way, the price would remain cheap, the hardware would be reliable, and easy for anyone working the coffee shop to use.

It's relatively cheap, and your local coffee shop won't need a geek on-site to set up and maintain it.

I'm only replying because this is a terrible mix of crappy assumptions.

And, as far as the hardware thing - I'm running with a Radeon 9000, P4 2.6c, and 512MB DDR400. It buckles under the pressure of games like Max Payne 2, Midnight Club, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic unless I cut the quality down.

Just because you may have bought the card recently doesn't mean anything. The 9000 Pro is based on 8500 technology, which is over 2 years old.

The worst part: the 9000 Pro is actually significantly slower than the 8500 in games that utilize complex multitexturing or heavy use of shaders. Don't blame the PC platform for bringing you down, this is your fault for purchasing without any research whatsoever.

If money was truely an object, you could have avoided the $100 Intel P4 markup and purchased an Althon XP 2400. That's $100 more you could have piped into a video card, if you had been so moved.

Halo on the Xbox looks and plays great. No sacrifice in quality.

The graphics engine inside is actually less powerful than your Radeon 9000 Pro. The reason the Xbox performs well is because companies can optimize for the hardware, and they also render at a MUCH lower resolution. Yeah, that's right, try you Xbox at 1080i and tell me it's still a performance hog.

I don't know where you got your information from, but if I were you I'd take it back for a refund. With CPU's running at 3Ghz+ and buses running at speeds upto 800Mhz (With nice, long, traces on the motherboard! Gee, sort of like an ariel..) your computer transmits all sorts of electromagnetic radiation on bands upto and surprasing your kitchen microwave.

Like I stated in a previous post there are no frequencies above 200 Mhz outside of the processor. An 800 Mhz bus is actually a 200 Mhz bus quad pumped so it transfers as much data as an 800 Mhz bus would. There's simply too much stray capacitance on the motherboard to tolerate the distance between the CPU and RAM. Tomshardware explains it all here.

Ace's (Recommended)

Ars

HardOCP

Tom's

Anandtech (Recommended)

Take all benchmark results with a grain of salt. Many things can influence the results, and some sites like Tom's have long been known to be quite biased. If you read enough sites though, you tend to get a much better overall picture of how things really are.

Actually he didn't miss that point at all. This was mentioned in the very end of the article under the heading "Conclusion: Common Sense Prevails". Some of the comments there include:

Over and above the clear test results, our price-performance analysis clearly shows that the added performance of CPUs in the upper bracket bears no sensible relation to the extra price. ...

In the gaming sector, many processor makers are dogged by the fact that only a few programs need really fast CPUs. One reason for this development is the displacement of graphics-intensive operations to the graphics card; another is the ongoing tense competition between AMD and Intel that long ago outstripped the requirements of modern standard software in terms of performance. ...

Novices should certainly consider the AthlonXP 2600+ or 2800+, since a serviceable platform with 512 MB of memory is inexpensive and will do nicely for the next 18-24 months. ...

The AMD Athlon64 FX and Intel's Pentium 4 Extreme Edition are still status symbols for the computing jet set. After all, you can pick up a complete and high-performance system for between $750 and $1,000, which as our benchmarks show, also offer a superior price/performance ratio.

That certainly sounds like somebody who understands that most ordinary users will get all the performance they need by buying a cheaper processor, especially one of the notably cheaper AMD models.

Ah, Tom's Hardware. Not trying to be negative, but IMHO, they are a terrible source for tech information, and the bulk of their reviews contain startling errors, conclusions that defy reason, glaring omissions, and sensationalized reporting. The majority of those writing the reviews clearly have no idea what they are talking about, at least regarding the subject they are reporting on. Overall, I would rate them slightly above HotHardware.com.

Tom himself, as far as I can tell, is on the ball and knows his stuff VERY well, but he doesn't write articles much anymore, and obviously doesn't read them either. It is a common practice among hardware enthusiasts to quote Tom's for the humor value, trying to see if the author of the latest article is even more clueless than he was in his (or her) last article.

To be fair, they do have some excellent articles occasionally, and were the first ones to dare publish information on Intel's unstable Pentium III 1.13GHz processor, but unfortunately these seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Also, as has already been stated, XGI is hardly a new company. Of course, these bits of SiS and Trident are in completely new territory if they are trying to compete in the high-end gamer's market. Considering that this is their first real foray into that market, I think they have done an amazing job. I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. Remember, even the (once) most respected companies in the field can faulter, and that XGI has something that is even in the same ballpark as the most seasoned of players is an impressive feat.

Please read the linked article before posting statements, Mr. Karmawhore. Its a very excellent roundup.

Well, Tom may be overly enthusiastic at times, but you should not forget that he, and only he, had several world first on his website.

For example when he published thermal problems with the AMD athlons, instabilities of the to be released Pentium III 1.13GHz article and much more.

Judge the articles by themselves, not the website as a whole.

Ah, Tom's Hardware. Not trying to be negative, but IMHO, they are a terrible source for tech information, and the bulk of their reviews contain startling errors, conclusions that defy reason, glaring omissions, and sensationalized reporting.
The majority of those writing the reviews clearly have no idea what they are talking about, at least regarding the subject they are reporting on. Overall, I would rate them slightly above HotHardware.com.

Tom himself, as far as I can tell, is on the ball and knows his stuff VERY well, but he doesn't write articles much anymore, and obviously doesn't read them either.
It is a common practice among hardware enthusiasts to quote Tom's for the humor value, trying to see if the author of the latest article is even more clueless than he was in his (or her) last article.

To be fair, they do have some excellent articles occasionally, and were the first ones to dare publish information on Intel's unstable Pentium III 1.13GHz processor, but unfortunately these seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Also, as has already been stated, XGI is hardly a new company. Of course, these bits of SiS and Trident are in completely new territory if they are trying to compete in the high-end gamer's market. Considering that this is their first real foray into that market, I think they have done an amazing job. I'd say give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. Remember, even the (once) most respected companies in the field can faulter, and that XGI has something that is even in the same ballpark as the most seasoned of players is an impressive feat.

If these numbers represent real life heat production, the athlon 64 is their hottest running processor yet (89 W), as is the P2EE Intel's (93.9 W). While the athlon 64 is the more appealing choice, I'd still expect it to need a pretty noisy heatsink/fan. Personally, I'd like to see a dual-processor Pentium M. ;)

Nope, it was a bunch of Brits with a 486SX-25, a Voodoo, and tons of alcohol (including vodka). They got it up to 247MHz, before it Athloned (non-XP, and this isn't from the project site, it's THG's thermal test of the P3-1.0, the Ath-1.4, the AthMP-1.2, and a P4 (I forgot the clock)).

Anyway, http://totl.net/Eunuch/index.html is the project.

proof: heat sink and fan being pulled off of athlon64 and p4 (big d'load - 20MB)

oh, and shame on you for not chastizing him for putting two A's in athlon.

• MSI MATX I865PEM2-ILS
• Samsung black combo 52X24X52+16X CD-RW/DVD
• WAG311GE Netgear Wireless .11ABG+ PCI
• Intel P4 2,6GHz 800/512K
• Hauppauge WinTV PVR 350
• MSI GeForce FX5200 TD128 with DVI and TV-OUT
• 512MB PC400 DDRAM
• Maxtor Dmax Plus9 200Gb 7200RPM 8Mb SATA
• Coolermaster ATC 620C-BX1

The reasoning for the different items are as follows:

A similar model of the motherboard got good reviews by Toms Hardware Guide (yes, I know some people in /. hate Tom). The integrated sound on this board was recommended to me by an ALSA developer. It's also got SATA, LAN, USB and Firewire and, as a nice bonus, both coax and optical digital sound outputs.

Samsung...didn't matter much as long as it had DVD and CD-RW capabilities, black front was a nice touch though.

WAG311GE, one of few cards that support A, B and G wireless networking. Supported in Linux by the MadWifi drivers, unfortunately not truly open source, but neither are any other ABG card drivers.

Intel processor, I usually like Athlons but temperature (and thereby cooling requirements) is much more important in this box than speed.

Hauppage, well supported by MythTV and able to do MPEG2 recording and playback in hardware.

MSI GeForce, has VGA, DVI and TV-Out, also fanless and really cheap. Closed drivers but that's kinda hard to avoid.

Maxtor drive, I really wanted a more quiet Seagate but the SATA models were kind of impossible to find in any nearby store for decent prices. Also most stores seemed to have the ones with the least storage capacity.

Coolermaster, the case isn't "designed" to be a HTPC case (such as this one) which means it doesn't have the same silly price tag. It was also the exact same width as my stereo components (well, 3mm wider) and similar color.

Now all I have to do is wait...

Much as I like Intel's Pentium M processor, AMD actually doesn't do that bad here. The Pentium M running at 1.6GHz consumes somewhere around 25W of power. AMD's AthlonXP-M chips for the "thin and light" market consume a maximum of about 25W at ~1.4 or 1.5GHz as well (unfortunately AMD does a piss-poor job of documeting their mobile processors, so a bit of guesswork is required). The Pentium M is a slightly faster processor, but the difference shouldn't be huge.

The AthlonXP-M "Desktop replacement" chips consume more power with no improvement in performance (except being available at higher clock speeds), so they don't do all that well, but then agian, their compeititon is the P4-M. Here AMD actually has the low-powered solution, as the P4-M chips quite the power hogs.

FWIW Tom's Hardware did a comparison of two nearly identical notebooks, one with a Pentium-M and the other with an AthlonXP-M.

I wish they had included the new EPIA stuff in their comparison. I would like to know just where they stand on a price / performance comparison.

Ok, I generally hate Tom's Hardware (deeply biased, inaccurate reporting, etc), but they do have at least one useful article.

This doesn't show the latest processors, obviously, but it does show a nice spectrum with a large number of tests. Ignore the "writing" and just look at the numbers. I used it earlier this year to build a Linux MP3 server w/ an Athlon 1.4. I would've gone for VIA except for the cruddy MP3 encoding results -- this box ripped and encoded ~600 CDs and so MP3 encoding performance was important to me. I still wonder if I shouldn't have just gone the VIA route and done all the ripping/encoding on my main PCs (which would have been drastically less convienent, but it's a one-time thing after all).

It's a good companion article to the one Anandtech printed.

What are they doing to bias it then? They have so many benchmarks covering every possible usage pattern. Are they just making the benchmark numbers up? Or perhaps their pricing information is false? Give some evidence of the bias and I'll believe you. In the meantime, go find the other sites that reach the same conclusions. For example Tom's Hardware

I find that annoying because, assuming I'm interested, the first thing I end up doing is printing the HTML page to a PDF file so I can archive it.

This I can't believe. How can a PDF ever be better than HTML for digital archiving? HTML was meant to be read on computer; PDF is intended to be printed out.

Unless you really meant "ugly HTML" instead of merely "HTML". Stupid web pages with colorful toolbars, formatting, background pics, tables-for-layour, ad banners, 'related content' links and 'click here for page 3/21' on the bottom... they're a tough way to read documents, and I suppose a PDF could be an improvement.

But the best way for publishers to present documentation is as simple, usable HTML. Then, if the reader wants a PDF, she can print it herself, and it'll take whatever font and pagination she prefers. (PDFs created by publishers are greatly flawed in that the layout is frozen, instead of being dependent on the qualities of the output device. If I'm reading on a computer, there should be no page breaks.)

Right up front we're making a comprimise on price, budgeting I have done my some research (that site, among others, seemed the most helpful) and I'm leaning toward the Asus V9250 or an MSI FX5200. Do keep in mind that this will be a Windows machine, as the guy is decidedly non-computer technicalish.

So sure, this is slightly off-topic - don't feel obligated to respond or moderate. If you do happen to have a good suggestion as to the best video card value under one hundred bucks, please chime in. Thanks.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031107/ind ex.html

Of course a link is helpful.

http://www.xgitech.com/

Benchmarks look promising.


Conclusion

The Volari Duo V8 Ultra leaves us with a very mixed first impression. Despite the prototype status of our sample and its driver, the card was able to produce some very respectable results in some areas. These highlights are clouded by the problems with texture filtering and the stark performance drop-offs in some benchmarks and games.

XGI's driver team definitely has its work cut out for it. We can expect to see final boards with shipping status and WHQL drivers within the next one or two months, or so. That gives XGI's driver programmers a bit of time to iron out the kinks.

Should they be successful, XGI's cards may well become serious alternatives to ATi's and NVIDIA's offerings, especially considering their comparatively low prices. XGI is aiming for a street price of about $449 (plus tax), which is rather inexpensive. This makes XGI's top model a good $50 less expensive than the flagship models of NVIDIA or ATi. As far as the other versions of the cards are concerned, XGI has so far declined to comment.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031107/ind ex.html

Of course a link is helpful.

http://www.xgitech.com/

Benchmarks look promising.


Conclusion

The Volari Duo V8 Ultra leaves us with a very mixed first impression. Despite the prototype status of our sample and its driver, the card was able to produce some very respectable results in some areas. These highlights are clouded by the problems with texture filtering and the stark performance drop-offs in some benchmarks and games.

XGI's driver team definitely has its work cut out for it. We can expect to see final boards with shipping status and WHQL drivers within the next one or two months, or so. That gives XGI's driver programmers a bit of time to iron out the kinks.

Should they be successful, XGI's cards may well become serious alternatives to ATi's and NVIDIA's offerings, especially considering their comparatively low prices. XGI is aiming for a street price of about $449 (plus tax), which is rather inexpensive. This makes XGI's top model a good $50 less expensive than the flagship models of NVIDIA or ATi. As far as the other versions of the cards are concerned, XGI has so far declined to comment.

Let's see, the current Opterons are 193mm2 using 130nm process, as you can see here, so AMD is getting at most 148 dies from one wafer.

If we assume a regular hexagon of 193mm2, using the formulae for regular hexagons found here (Google to the rescue, Insta-Math!) each hexagonal die would be 14.93mm wide and 8.619mm to a side. That'll give you 13.39 dies across and 11.6 dies verically on a single wafer. SO, ok, all you Slashdot-lurking mathemeticians, how many hexagons of the given size can be completely inscribed by both 200mm and 300mm diameter circles?

And, as an additional exercise, what are the maximun number of hexagonal dies for 200mm and 300mm wafers when circuit dimensions are halved, i.e. 65nm process as planned for Fab-36?

Cheers!

SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.

Every time I hear about the SCO case and how they defend it, I think about this satire article published in Toms Hardware on the 1 of April 2003 a couple of month before SCO made their move. I think Maybe McBride probably got the idea from there!

Now, maybe Tom should think of suing SCO for making a bad rip-off of is joke? ;)

Tom's has an article detailing the poor range and dreaddully slow connection rates of the SD Wifi card. Anyone know if the memory stick is going to be plagued by the same problems? I can't imagine Sony will have solved them for "the stick."

Matrox does 2D and dual/multi monitor pretty well, but that's about it.

Definitely not a gaming card, though.

If you absolutely must have those extra few fps, then I guess Matrox are not the gaming cards for you. But this is silly. I played Half Life all the way through with a Matrox G200 and it was great.

Tom and Bert McComas would have you beleive that AGP gives WORSE performance than PCI!

This was back in the days when Tom's Hardware Guide was a whore for 3dfx and 3dfx did not offer an AGP card (later 3dfx offered a card with an AGP connector, which used the AGP slot as a PCI slot! Not using any AGP features due to their own chipset limitations.)

Bert McComas clearly shows either one of two things in his "technical article": 1. He does not have a technical grasp on what he writes and does not realise that failing to utilise one strong area of digital design (AGP) does not mean that that area is at fault. Or 2. He was intentionally mangling words to misrepresent the facts as if "AGP is worse than PCI" performance wise.

The fact is that AGP provided a bus that was many TIMES faster than PCI. Failing to utilise that bandwidth IS NOT THE FAULT OF AGP!

His comments fall down the toilet, where they belong, when Tom's hardware compared some AGP cards with PCI Voodoo2's, including a dual 12Mb Voodoo2 setup...

In a test with huge textures, textures too big to fully fit into the 12Mb local memory of the Voodoo2's, the Voodoo2's suddenly were at the complete mercy of the PCI bus.

The end result is a dual 12Mb Voodoo2 setup being completely beaten by some G200 (1.75 times faster) and TNT (2.6 times faster) cards!

AGP 1
PCI 0

Matrox cards have been more than usable for gaming.

Matrox does 2D and dual/multi monitor pretty well, but that's about it.

Definitely not a gaming card, though.

If you absolutely must have those extra few fps, then I guess Matrox are not the gaming cards for you. But this is silly. I played Half Life all the way through with a Matrox G200 and it was great.

Tom and Bert McComas would have you beleive that AGP gives WORSE performance than PCI!

This was back in the days when Tom's Hardware Guide was a whore for 3dfx and 3dfx did not offer an AGP card (later 3dfx offered a card with an AGP connector, which used the AGP slot as a PCI slot! Not using any AGP features due to their own chipset limitations.)

Bert McComas clearly shows either one of two things in his "technical article": 1. He does not have a technical grasp on what he writes and does not realise that failing to utilise one strong area of digital design (AGP) does not mean that that area is at fault. Or 2. He was intentionally mangling words to misrepresent the facts as if "AGP is worse than PCI" performance wise.

The fact is that AGP provided a bus that was many TIMES faster than PCI. Failing to utilise that bandwidth IS NOT THE FAULT OF AGP!

His comments fall down the toilet, where they belong, when Tom's hardware compared some AGP cards with PCI Voodoo2's, including a dual 12Mb Voodoo2 setup...

In a test with huge textures, textures too big to fully fit into the 12Mb local memory of the Voodoo2's, the Voodoo2's suddenly were at the complete mercy of the PCI bus.

The end result is a dual 12Mb Voodoo2 setup being completely beaten by some G200 (1.75 times faster) and TNT (2.6 times faster) cards!

AGP 1
PCI 0

Matrox cards have been more than usable for gaming.

The Nvidia TNT is completely left out, which is a shock considering the TNT is the card that lead to the downfall of 3dfx. It was the first card that beat the Voodoo2's 3D performance and offered 2D in one card:
Pentium 2 400mhz - Quake 2 @ 800x600
TNT2 = 40fps
Voodoo2 = 37fps

And the TNT was priced lower than a single Voodoo2, easily making it the best bang for the buck. How good was it really? Tom said it best: "This article shall answer the question if NVIDIA's RIVA TNT will be able to replace Voodoo2 and if it's indeed better than Banshee.... To already answer this question for my part, yes, I am using TNT and there are no 3Dfx cards in my own system anymore, the first time after more than 2 years."

After the TNT everything changed for Nvidia: the TNT2 followed in early '99, with the Geforce late '99 and Geforce2 in 2000. 3dfx never really caught up after the TNT, releasing the Voodoo3 in '99 but it wasn't quite up to par with the TNT2 (despite FastSilicon claiming "The Voodoo3 barely beat the TNT2 in pure FPS") and it clearly didn't compete with the TNT2 Ultra or Geforce. The rest is history.

For more video card history I suggest reading Tom's Hardware. He's still got the reviews from 1996-1997 and 1998. A much more complete history and no cards have been left out.

The Nvidia TNT is completely left out, which is a shock considering the TNT is the card that lead to the downfall of 3dfx. It was the first card that beat the Voodoo2's 3D performance and offered 2D in one card:
Pentium 2 400mhz - Quake 2 @ 800x600
TNT2 = 40fps
Voodoo2 = 37fps

And the TNT was priced lower than a single Voodoo2, easily making it the best bang for the buck. How good was it really? Tom said it best: "This article shall answer the question if NVIDIA's RIVA TNT will be able to replace Voodoo2 and if it's indeed better than Banshee.... To already answer this question for my part, yes, I am using TNT and there are no 3Dfx cards in my own system anymore, the first time after more than 2 years."

After the TNT everything changed for Nvidia: the TNT2 followed in early '99, with the Geforce late '99 and Geforce2 in 2000. 3dfx never really caught up after the TNT, releasing the Voodoo3 in '99 but it wasn't quite up to par with the TNT2 (despite FastSilicon claiming "The Voodoo3 barely beat the TNT2 in pure FPS") and it clearly didn't compete with the TNT2 Ultra or Geforce. The rest is history.

For more video card history I suggest reading Tom's Hardware. He's still got the reviews from 1996-1997 and 1998. A much more complete history and no cards have been left out.

The Nvidia TNT is completely left out, which is a shock considering the TNT is the card that lead to the downfall of 3dfx. It was the first card that beat the Voodoo2's 3D performance and offered 2D in one card:
Pentium 2 400mhz - Quake 2 @ 800x600
TNT2 = 40fps
Voodoo2 = 37fps

And the TNT was priced lower than a single Voodoo2, easily making it the best bang for the buck. How good was it really? Tom said it best: "This article shall answer the question if NVIDIA's RIVA TNT will be able to replace Voodoo2 and if it's indeed better than Banshee.... To already answer this question for my part, yes, I am using TNT and there are no 3Dfx cards in my own system anymore, the first time after more than 2 years."

After the TNT everything changed for Nvidia: the TNT2 followed in early '99, with the Geforce late '99 and Geforce2 in 2000. 3dfx never really caught up after the TNT, releasing the Voodoo3 in '99 but it wasn't quite up to par with the TNT2 (despite FastSilicon claiming "The Voodoo3 barely beat the TNT2 in pure FPS") and it clearly didn't compete with the TNT2 Ultra or Geforce. The rest is history.

For more video card history I suggest reading Tom's Hardware. He's still got the reviews from 1996-1997 and 1998. A much more complete history and no cards have been left out.