As long as they don't tap the GPU for UI effects like they did in Vista and 7 I'm cool with it.;)
I also can't help but feel they chose the worst way to display the new UI. The wallpaper is horrific, Window colors do not seem tuned, looks like a 12 year old realized you can change the UI colors around and started tapping away at configuration options. I doubt this is the final refined look / color scheme.
Verizon's being pretty crafty about that as well. They are not changing the terms of existing contracts. Once your contract is up you simply wont be eligible to renew your current plan and must switch to one of their "new and improved" plans...
PC gaming 10 years ago is a very different story from today. If you have a desktop PC with a mid range discrete video card you'll be good for about 4 years. You wont be playing on max settings at the end of it's life cycle but 4 years is reasonable. A Core2 duo an 8800 GT and 4 gb of memory can play any game out there today and that's mid range equipment almost 5 years ago.
It's not ATI anymore... It's AMD. I'm a longtime fan of their hardware in general. The AMD X2 blew my mind when it came out. Currently their Vision and Fusion products are pretty awesome. Unfortunately Nvidia has been beating them pretty consistently in the GPU world for the past many generations regarding all around performance and stability. AMD always stays pretty close "on a lower R&D budget" most the time and edges them out for a while but Nvidia always comes back quickly with a punch. Even the mess that was the GTX 480 delay brought a card that smoked AMD in DX11 technology like tesselation. Nvidia always seems to choose the right place to focus their development.
Actually high performance computing has created more demand. Nvidia GPU's are being used in massive supercomputers using OpenCL and CUDA. "AMD GPU's support OpenCL." There are a many more people who are interested in the latest and greatest GPU than you may think, specifically on a news for nerds site. So yeah, sweat article and thanks for the heads up about the new benches MojoKid.
The GTX 680 and 690 have turned out to be pretty spectacular. The most impressive aspect is the relatively low power consumption for a high performance card.
I'm still waiting for the GK110-based "Big Fermi" due out Q3. Considering how well the 680 and 690 have performed the Gk110 will be a monster, probably power hungry but still a monster. Nvidia really hit gold with their latest generation, it is speculated that the current 680 was intended to be the 660 until it outperformed AMD's top offering. Can't wait to get my hands on a 4gb GK110.
Well..., I actually want the power slurping beast! 300 watts "400 with a hearty overclock" is fine with me for the biggest baddest card out there and that's what I'm expecting with GK110. I guess what I was trying to get at is that If the current 680 is any indication of performance per watt then GK110 is gonna be a whole lotta woah...
Not likely, it's the third generation of their Fermi architecture and has the lowest power draw compared with the last 2 generations. I have a 480 and a 580 that are both still performing spectacularly.
That's what I'm waiting for as well. Nvidia got pretty lucky with GK104. Most speculation is that it was intended to be the GTX 660 and GK110 was supposed to be the 680. However, GK104 was faster than AMD's fastest offering so why not sell it as a 680. The specs for GK110 "Big Fermi" are pretty intimidating and worth waiting for. I was also dissatisfied with 2 GB of memory for GK104, there are 4 gb cards coming out but they're around 800 bucks. GK110 will come with 4 gb standard.
I do have to hand it to Nvidia. The power requirements for the current 680 are very low and performance is quite impressive but GK 110 is going to be a monster...
Yeah I cringed when I saw that typo of mine. Apologies. However, I do wonder why you bothered to reply after reading "do" when there is so much info on the internet...
We know quite a bit about the moon. It's composition is eerily similar to the earths crust. This discovery lead to a recent theory that the moon is the result of a planetary collision that blasted crust material off the early earth. The moon also is believed to have had a somewhat active core early in it's development. Remember that with a body of significant mass such as the moon, heavy elements are going to be pulled towards the core and be frozen there as the core cools. As for asteroids that have struck the moon, their materials have been reduced by impact. There will not likely be as concentrated of a source do to material being lost/scattered by the intensity of the impact. The moon is not likely a very resource rich rock.
However, a concentrated Nickel-Iron asteroid as one other poster mentioned could be very lucrative.
The moon has been shown to be composed of materials that are very similar to the earths crust and the moon has not experienced nearly the same level of volcanic activity of the earth. The earths crust does not contain very many resources. What resources is does contain comes from that volcanic activity. In other words the moon is not a good candidate for the resources we desire.
Actually that is completely incorrect. Many asteroids in the solar system have been shown to contain as much iron ore as has been mined in the history of human industrialization as well as many other exotic and precious metals that are very rare on earth. There are many reasons to consider mining asteroids. It is actually a very important step in the progress of our society. When we stop stripping the earth of resources and move both extraction and manufacturing off our own planet we have a huge opportunity to sustain the quality of our environment, develop lower cost means of transporting materials on and off this planet because there is a financial incentive, and access exotic materials that are increasingly part of electronics.
Remember, most the metal in this planet is below the crust. The metals we do have in the crust is from the lower levels of the earth squirting little bits out every now and then. An asteroid does not have that problem.
Well crap, it looks like that's what they may be claiming to have done. The graph shows lower power usage in outdoor environments compared with indoor. My understanding is that creating a display which can reflect light in bright environments or be backlit in darker environments was a very big problem. Maybe that's what they have figured out.
If they made a screen which had the qualities mentioned in the article and was also able to be backlit or reflective for outdoor use this would be an even bigger deal.
We do have enough data. That is until we find something so outlandish that we need more data... It's a very sophisticated piece of equipment that is already in space. Considering how successful it's been, if we can continue to use it without having to send a manned mission to fix it, then we should just keep it operational as long as possible.
I can't tell you how many people I have met who view evolution in the 19th century "blacksmiths son" perspective. It seems the moment you say "mutation" people assume you mean the neighbors kid suddenly sprouting horns and the gaining the ability to fly. For this reason mutation is often excluded from peoples consideration and they see evolution as intentionally pushing an organism being better suited. But that is a "blacksmiths son" perspective, that if a blacksmith were to father a child then the child would have one arm more powerful than the other, because the parent has become better suited to their environment with that one strong arm. But that isn't how it happens. It is hard to wrap your mind around the idea that very small mutations are naturally selected or excluded based on whether they just happen to better suit an organism. It happens on time scales we just can't perceive. This is another reason why many creationist view people who believe in evolution as adopting a religion. Because to them it is a belief based on faith and not scientifically reasoned.
Exactly... These are people who are leaving impoverished villages and lining up at places like Foxconn, fighting tooth and nail to get a job there. Their kids will go to school and get a chance to become more than their factory-line worker parents. We have no right to do anything unless people are being forced against their will and they are not...
Is there any advantage to sending a person? Does that accomplish anything more than just doing it? I'm all for research and exploration I just don't see the point in wasting resources on sustaining a person until we have technology which makes it more practical.
Slashdot Mirror
Richard Branson is more of a "Lethal Weapon" type.
As long as they don't tap the GPU for UI effects like they did in Vista and 7 I'm cool with it. ;)
I also can't help but feel they chose the worst way to display the new UI. The wallpaper is horrific, Window colors do not seem tuned, looks like a 12 year old realized you can change the UI colors around and started tapping away at configuration options. I doubt this is the final refined look / color scheme.
Verizon's being pretty crafty about that as well. They are not changing the terms of existing contracts. Once your contract is up you simply wont be eligible to renew your current plan and must switch to one of their "new and improved" plans...
I just wish we could actually watch it land... That is going to be a spectacle.
@1080p and what screen size? A 22 inch 1080P screen is going to look great. 27" will start to show aliasing, 30" and it get's quite noticeable.
PC gaming 10 years ago is a very different story from today. If you have a desktop PC with a mid range discrete video card you'll be good for about 4 years. You wont be playing on max settings at the end of it's life cycle but 4 years is reasonable. A Core2 duo an 8800 GT and 4 gb of memory can play any game out there today and that's mid range equipment almost 5 years ago.
Sorry I just can't resist. You sir are talking out your ass... ;)
It's not ATI anymore... It's AMD. I'm a longtime fan of their hardware in general. The AMD X2 blew my mind when it came out. Currently their Vision and Fusion products are pretty awesome. Unfortunately Nvidia has been beating them pretty consistently in the GPU world for the past many generations regarding all around performance and stability. AMD always stays pretty close "on a lower R&D budget" most the time and edges them out for a while but Nvidia always comes back quickly with a punch. Even the mess that was the GTX 480 delay brought a card that smoked AMD in DX11 technology like tesselation. Nvidia always seems to choose the right place to focus their development.
argh... *Sweet
My bad.
Actually high performance computing has created more demand. Nvidia GPU's are being used in massive supercomputers using OpenCL and CUDA. "AMD GPU's support OpenCL." There are a many more people who are interested in the latest and greatest GPU than you may think, specifically on a news for nerds site. So yeah, sweat article and thanks for the heads up about the new benches MojoKid.
The GTX 680 and 690 have turned out to be pretty spectacular. The most impressive aspect is the relatively low power consumption for a high performance card.
I'm still waiting for the GK110-based "Big Fermi" due out Q3. Considering how well the 680 and 690 have performed the Gk110 will be a monster, probably power hungry but still a monster. Nvidia really hit gold with their latest generation, it is speculated that the current 680 was intended to be the 660 until it outperformed AMD's top offering. Can't wait to get my hands on a 4gb GK110.
Well..., I actually want the power slurping beast! 300 watts "400 with a hearty overclock" is fine with me for the biggest baddest card out there and that's what I'm expecting with GK110. I guess what I was trying to get at is that If the current 680 is any indication of performance per watt then GK110 is gonna be a whole lotta woah...
Not likely, it's the third generation of their Fermi architecture and has the lowest power draw compared with the last 2 generations. I have a 480 and a 580 that are both still performing spectacularly.
That's what I'm waiting for as well. Nvidia got pretty lucky with GK104. Most speculation is that it was intended to be the GTX 660 and GK110 was supposed to be the 680. However, GK104 was faster than AMD's fastest offering so why not sell it as a 680. The specs for GK110 "Big Fermi" are pretty intimidating and worth waiting for. I was also dissatisfied with 2 GB of memory for GK104, there are 4 gb cards coming out but they're around 800 bucks. GK110 will come with 4 gb standard.
I do have to hand it to Nvidia. The power requirements for the current 680 are very low and performance is quite impressive but GK 110 is going to be a monster...
Yeah I cringed when I saw that typo of mine. Apologies. However, I do wonder why you bothered to reply after reading "do" when there is so much info on the internet...
We know quite a bit about the moon. It's composition is eerily similar to the earths crust. This discovery lead to a recent theory that the moon is the result of a planetary collision that blasted crust material off the early earth. The moon also is believed to have had a somewhat active core early in it's development. Remember that with a body of significant mass such as the moon, heavy elements are going to be pulled towards the core and be frozen there as the core cools. As for asteroids that have struck the moon, their materials have been reduced by impact. There will not likely be as concentrated of a source do to material being lost/scattered by the intensity of the impact. The moon is not likely a very resource rich rock.
However, a concentrated Nickel-Iron asteroid as one other poster mentioned could be very lucrative.
The moon has been shown to be composed of materials that are very similar to the earths crust and the moon has not experienced nearly the same level of volcanic activity of the earth. The earths crust does not contain very many resources. What resources is does contain comes from that volcanic activity. In other words the moon is not a good candidate for the resources we desire.
Actually that is completely incorrect. Many asteroids in the solar system have been shown to contain as much iron ore as has been mined in the history of human industrialization as well as many other exotic and precious metals that are very rare on earth. There are many reasons to consider mining asteroids. It is actually a very important step in the progress of our society. When we stop stripping the earth of resources and move both extraction and manufacturing off our own planet we have a huge opportunity to sustain the quality of our environment, develop lower cost means of transporting materials on and off this planet because there is a financial incentive, and access exotic materials that are increasingly part of electronics.
Remember, most the metal in this planet is below the crust. The metals we do have in the crust is from the lower levels of the earth squirting little bits out every now and then. An asteroid does not have that problem.
Well crap, it looks like that's what they may be claiming to have done. The graph shows lower power usage in outdoor environments compared with indoor. My understanding is that creating a display which can reflect light in bright environments or be backlit in darker environments was a very big problem. Maybe that's what they have figured out.
If they made a screen which had the qualities mentioned in the article and was also able to be backlit or reflective for outdoor use this would be an even bigger deal.
We do have enough data. That is until we find something so outlandish that we need more data... It's a very sophisticated piece of equipment that is already in space. Considering how successful it's been, if we can continue to use it without having to send a manned mission to fix it, then we should just keep it operational as long as possible.
I can't tell you how many people I have met who view evolution in the 19th century "blacksmiths son" perspective. It seems the moment you say "mutation" people assume you mean the neighbors kid suddenly sprouting horns and the gaining the ability to fly. For this reason mutation is often excluded from peoples consideration and they see evolution as intentionally pushing an organism being better suited. But that is a "blacksmiths son" perspective, that if a blacksmith were to father a child then the child would have one arm more powerful than the other, because the parent has become better suited to their environment with that one strong arm. But that isn't how it happens. It is hard to wrap your mind around the idea that very small mutations are naturally selected or excluded based on whether they just happen to better suit an organism. It happens on time scales we just can't perceive. This is another reason why many creationist view people who believe in evolution as adopting a religion. Because to them it is a belief based on faith and not scientifically reasoned.
Exactly... These are people who are leaving impoverished villages and lining up at places like Foxconn, fighting tooth and nail to get a job there. Their kids will go to school and get a chance to become more than their factory-line worker parents. We have no right to do anything unless people are being forced against their will and they are not...
Is there any advantage to sending a person? Does that accomplish anything more than just doing it? I'm all for research and exploration I just don't see the point in wasting resources on sustaining a person until we have technology which makes it more practical.
Since you have both, Could you run the OpenGL Egypt benchmark for comparison?