Into the Core - Intel's New Core CPU
Tyler Too writes "Hannibal over at Ars Technica has an in-depth look at Intel's new Core processors. From the article: 'In a time when an increasing number of processors are moving away from out-of-order execution (OOOE, or sometimes just OOO) toward in-order, more VLIW-like designs that rely heavily on multithreading and compiler/coder smarts for their performance, Core is as full-throated an affirmation of the ongoing importance of OOOE as you can get.'"
I will now support the underdog even if Intel drops below AMD just to insure stiff competition. You can call me a young idealist about capitalism!
Hmmmmn, I think I'll actually call you someone who needs to read up a bit on both idealism and capitalism!
Also, on a somewhat note - never care about a company, because the company cannot reciprocate your feelings.
If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.
My pics.
Clearly you've never heard of a boycott, picket, or any other similar form of consumer revolt.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Ian. These are often inductor coils on the MB power circuitry making this noise. Go to silentpcreview.com forums and search for coil whine. It happens in PSU coils or/and more frequently on MB power circuitry coils. It is a combination of components that causes it and unfortunately there is not much you can do other than change the PSU/video card etc which are not possible on a laptop. You can douse the coils in electronics grade silicone (which is acid free) but I am not suggesting this. Send it back for servicing if they take it.
If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.
You missed his point entirely. You're advocating a short-term, passive outlook, while the GP is advocating a long-term, active one. If you buy whoever is less expensive now, you get the benefit of saving money on this purchase and every purchase from them until they decide to raise prices. And that will be shortly after they snuff all the competition out of existence. If you buy from whoever is the underdog, you'll likely get a less expensive item now (since they have to cut prices to get attention away from the market leader), and in the future, you'll see healthy competition where everyone (including the market leader) has to lower prices. And that makes all of your purchases less expensive overall.
It's not "caring about a company". It's evaluation of a company's credentials and market position. The word "care" is just used as a shorthand way of saying that. In context, it makes perfect sense. In the context of a person, "care" is a term of affection or affinity. In the context of a company whose product you're planning to purchase, "care" is a term of satisfaction with the product and acceptance of the purchase terms. And on that level, a company can reciprocate your feelings and "care" about you as a customer.
That's what's in there.
This is slightly off-topic, but can someone please tell me my Intel continues to have so few registers? I have done some assembly work on x86 and it is always such a chore because I spend 75% of the time moving data in and out of registers. I would love to at least be able to do a double for loop without having to move my iterators. It's just so frustrating.
The car, however, doesn't know you're going to stop giving it gasoline if it doesn't do what you want, and can't possibly respond. So TERRIBLE analogy. A company is certainly far closer to a human than a mindless machine.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Also, on a somewhat note - never care about a company, because the company cannot reciprocate your feelings.
If Intel comes out with a better, cheaper processor tomorrow, don't buy the AMD one, buy the intel one. Their is no point treating a company like a person.
Well, the poster specifically said he did not care about either company, just that there was still competition. And I think there is a assumption of parity when you suggest buying the product from the company with less marketshare.
Especially, as you find yourself buying a greater volume of products or more frequently, the overall health of the market is an important consideration in your self interest. It is foolish to let yourself become locked into just one Vendor or manufacturer for a class of products that you buy regularly. Or to support one company to the exclusion of others to the extent that you will be left with no real choice down the road.
People need to understand the effects of their purchasing decisions both on a personal and corporate level. Sure if there is a clear basis of superiority for less cost, then go with the better choice and hope the competition picks up in the future. But if all other qualities are nearly equal then buying from a competative company that happens to have less marketshare will go a long way towards ensuring a healthy marketplace.