And while it sometimes seems as though there are almost as many visual plug-ins on the market, G-Force in particular has established itself as one of the leading "visual enhancers" for the MP3-listening public. (Apple recently bundled it as the default plug-in for their acclaimed iTunes product.)
The Intel Xeon processor coming out (not Pentium III Xeon, not Pentium 4 Xeon, but simply Intel Xeon) is based on the Pentium 4 and offers multi-CPU options.
Well... why? If AMD's 64-bit series turns out to outperform IA-64 and it will still old x86 software faster than IA-64 as well and it's cheaper than the same generation Intel CPU (once again), then why in the hell should I buy Intel?
It's generally accepted that IA64 will completely waste its x86-64 counterpart in 64-bit code, because it doesn't have the really bulky (and really shitty) overhead of x86 burdening it. But x86-64 will be considerably faster in legacy x86 code.
Keep in mind that the PPro core (P6, the one used in Pentium II & III & Celeron) was much slower at running 16-bit code than the Pentium was, but faster at 32-bit. How often do you use 16-bit code now?:)
AMD is trying to keep the market using 32-bit. It's time to move on. Move on all the way, a half-assed approach is only harmful.
Re:Still too early to judge Pentium 4
on
Pentium IV study
·
· Score: 1
Funny, because the Pentium 4 is outselling the Athlon right now. As many, many people have stated: GHz == sales.
Anyway, here's the question I pose:
Why would you need to run LEGACY applications with extreme speed? You can already run them more-than-fine on most systems, including the Pentium 4. What you want to buy CPUs for is how well it will perform in the future. You don't need 900fps in Quake III, you want 60fps in DOOM III. Capiche?
SSE2 will become popular, because even AMD has licensed it. If you buy an Athlon now, you may accomplish more FPS in 3D games (amazingly enough, the P4 still wins clock-for-clock in Quake III framerates compared w/ the Athlon). If you get a P4 (I'd wait for the new socket version ones, though), you'll have SSE2 support and will most likely get a performance boost in FUTURE apps, when it'll actually press your hardware.
I'd rather keep my slow 640kbps/90kbps DSL line and be left alone, instead of having an ultra-fast cable modem connection where I can't VPN, can't run a server, and can't have a static IP.
Most cable providers give static IPs, and the conditions about VPN/servers, etc are all dependent on the ISP itself.
My ISP allows VPNs and LANs, but they just don't provide tech support with them. There is a clause about not using it as a server, but everyone I know does it, and no one has had their accounts canceled. I think they're just worried about people trying to host major websites on their boxes, and have the clause in there for legal reasons.
I'd like some of what you are smoking. Why on Earth would an AMD monopoly (not that that is feasible in many years) be worse than an Intel monopoly? Intel have already showed us that they will not flinch from asking $2000 or more for their fastest chip, or slow down Moore's law to a dribble. It is only competition from AMD that has forced Intel to speed up the scaling and lower their prices (somewhat). Because it cuts into money used from R&D. If you sell a product so that you just break even, you have FAR less cash to throw in the research department.
If you want to support AMD's R&D you can buy two CPUs then; use one and put the other one in a drawer. Then AMD will get as much $ from you as Intel would for a worse performing CPU, you have a backup CPU and warm fuzzy feeling from helping AMD's R&D. Not really, AMD makes very little extra money off of the chips they sell, most of it goes into covering costs with very little to throw into R&D. In your example, you'd help them VERY little.
Didn't they say exactly that some 10 years ago, when the first RISC chips came?;-) Yep, and look what is happening: x86 is dying.:P PowerPC is gaining popularity, IA-64 will most likely begin fully replacing x86 in about 3-4 years.
Yes, but not little slower. Didn't an 800 MHz Itanium perform roughly on par with a 50 MHz 486 on i386 code?
I really don't think it's that slow, but if you'd like to show benchmarks to prove this, be my guest.:) Besides, why would you spend big bucks on a server-class 64-bit CPU, and then run 32-bit code? Doesn't make much sense.
Most/.'ers constantly whine about how they love competition and the like, and condemn Microsoft for being a monopoly.
Next thing they do is hop over to an AMD thread and beat Intel into the ground with trolls and flames, which kinda infers that they want Intel dead. The result would be a monopoly by AMD, which would be FAR worse than an Intel monopoly.
AMD does not "innovate", they "tweak" and "re-design" existing technologies for the most part, usually for shockingly low prices (which ends up cutting into R&D funds, which is VERY bad in the long run).
Athlon is great right now. But in a few years, developers and designers will have had enough with the current x86, and will want a better option: IA64. x86-64 is only good in the respect that it runs 32-bit code very fast, as well as support for 64-bit code which would (ideally) also run very fast.
The gest of it is that x86-64 is an "expansion" to the aging x86, which should have been ditched long ago to begin with. I seriously doubt that it'll take off faster than IA-64 will. IA-64 still runs 32-bit code, just slower. Personally, I'd invest in a chip with a brighter FUTURE, not for support for legacy applications (kinda like the Pentium 4 vs. Pentium III/Athlon debate).
C. DVD playing is hardly a "key feature." DVD burning was *never* a key feature, nor was CD-RW. Until only recently this was always a third-party software opportunity.
DVD playing became a key feature since Apple began rolling out the marketing on the superdrive on the new G4s, which reads and writes DVDs. Granted, not many people would use this. It's not very fun to watch DVDs while sitting at your computer desk (yes, TV-out is an option, but still...bleagh -- and data DVDs aren't too common yet:P). The DVD burning speed is probably something atrocious like 0.25x.
Apple made DVD playing and writing a major selling point for its computers, so not having this in the initial release is a bit of a kick in the pants.
I dunno, but Diablo II didn't really seem like a major technological innovation. I think they're trying to make a big deal about a problem that doesn't exist.
Didn't they encourage people to distribute copies of MS Office when it was first coming out?
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
Why does everyone assume he's talking about MHz ratings only?
You need to look at the system as a whole when comparing. For gaming, the PCs easily kick the Mac's ass (it's not even CLOSE). For Photoshop, the G4-powered systems usually come out ahead. But who really uses Photoshop that much? People who do nothing but photoshop should get a Mac, people who enjoy gaming should get a PC.
The PCs are about 4-5x faster in Quake III and similar games (GF2 Ultra vs. Rage128/GF2MX).
Macs are also restricted to PC100 (now PC133 with the G4+), while PCs have DDR SDRAM and RDRAM to choose from as well. And then there's the bus speed issue: 100MHz (now 133MHz with the G4+) for the G4, 400MHz + 266MHz for the PC market.
Altivec is a pain in the ass to program for, as well. Won't be seeing too many programs for it.
Credible sources, who prefer to remain anonymous, told us that Bill Gates and Microsoft will announce at the spring Tokyo Game Show that the Microsoft Xbox will include the Dreamcast chipset, allowing it to play all Dreamcast titles. This announcement is expected to come on the first day of the show (March 30) when Bill Gates delivers his keynote address. And while not finalized, we have been told that the DC chipset is already incorporated into the Xbox, although at this time, the DC-compatible Xbox has yet to be finalized as the market version of the system.
Yes, dedicated hardware is needed and is supposed to be provided for.
I'm irritated that they're trying to promote sales by telling the uneducated masses that this wunderbox is the next big console when it's nothing more than a mass-produced e-machine without the monitor and 3-years' worth of payments.
Um. Who cares if it is a re-packaged console? The thing is the architecture is consistent on all X-Boxes, so it's easy to develop for. On top of this, it's considerably cheaper than getting a similarly-equiped eMachine (The video card alone could cost around $300). I don't have a clue where you're coming from, amigo.:)
The GeForce 2 Ultra is already at 250MHz (GTS is at 200MHz, MX is at 175MHz). The NV20 will most likely debut at 300MHz (note: The X-Box specs state a 300MHz NVIDIA processor, based off of NV20).
About the 2-7x faster...
on
Nvidia's NV20
·
· Score: 2
In complex scenes, it could be up to 7x faster because of Hidden Surface Removal (HSR). Many modern video cards still render surfaces that can't be seen by the user because they're blocked by other objects. In the NV20, a new Z-Buffer tech would remove those surfaces from the rendering pipeline, which can dramatically improve performance.
The Radeon has a version of this implemented, but (to be honest), the Radeon isn't really too powerful. Imagine a powerful NVIDIA chip loaded up with HSR, and you'd get up to 7x faster in complex scenes, while simple scenes would only be a bit faster (less hidden surfaces to begin with).
Re:Image clarity and color accuracy ..
on
Nvidia's NV20
·
· Score: 1
The problem lies between the keyboard and the chair. I'm running a GeForce 2 MX right now at 1280x1024, and it's perfectly fine. No artifacts whatsoever.
Why Win98? Because many, many people who buy high-end systems tend to be hardcore gamers. Most hardcore gamers don't play under Win2K, they play under Win98. Thus, Win98 is used.
(Also, it's the most popular OS)
1) b&w will be open-sourced. I remeber reading about this a few months ago, and the developer said it'd be free for other open-sourced games...interesting nonetheless
You've read a bloated rumor. B&W's creator (Peter Molenaux (sp)) said that it'd be interesting if he open sourced it, although it'd be unlikely with his publisher and the like. He has expressed interest in doing it, it is by no means a final thing.
Can anyone out there actually tell the difference between 60 and 200 fps?
I'm becoming a tad irritated with people who keep bringing up that moot point.
First off, in complex scenes filled with gibs, smoke, and the like, framerates drop drastically.
Second of all, when things such as FSAA are enabled, visual quality increases and framerates drop accordingly.
Third of all, 60 fps now will mean about 15fps in new games in 2 years. I remember these exact same comments when the Voodoo 2 debuted. Are people inherently this nearsighted?
The thing is, the Pentium 4 is slated to hit 2.0GHz by January 2001. The Athlons can't scale up as fast, and when they do scale up, they lose IPC like mad.
Athlons and Pentium 4s are both good. However, the Pentium 4s will go faster in a shorter period of time (that was its design goal).
Slashdot Mirror
I've always liked it, my self.
And while it sometimes seems as though there are almost as many visual plug-ins on the market, G-Force in particular has established itself as one of the leading "visual enhancers" for the MP3-listening public. (Apple recently bundled it as the default plug-in for their acclaimed iTunes product.)
The Intel Xeon processor coming out (not Pentium III Xeon, not Pentium 4 Xeon, but simply Intel Xeon) is based on the Pentium 4 and offers multi-CPU options.
It's generally accepted that IA64 will completely waste its x86-64 counterpart in 64-bit code, because it doesn't have the really bulky (and really shitty) overhead of x86 burdening it. But x86-64 will be considerably faster in legacy x86 code.
Keep in mind that the PPro core (P6, the one used in Pentium II & III & Celeron) was much slower at running 16-bit code than the Pentium was, but faster at 32-bit. How often do you use 16-bit code now? :)
AMD is trying to keep the market using 32-bit. It's time to move on. Move on all the way, a half-assed approach is only harmful.
Anyway, here's the question I pose:
Why would you need to run LEGACY applications with extreme speed? You can already run them more-than-fine on most systems, including the Pentium 4. What you want to buy CPUs for is how well it will perform in the future. You don't need 900fps in Quake III, you want 60fps in DOOM III. Capiche?
SSE2 will become popular, because even AMD has licensed it. If you buy an Athlon now, you may accomplish more FPS in 3D games (amazingly enough, the P4 still wins clock-for-clock in Quake III framerates compared w/ the Athlon). If you get a P4 (I'd wait for the new socket version ones, though), you'll have SSE2 support and will most likely get a performance boost in FUTURE apps, when it'll actually press your hardware.
Alpha Centauri is well over 2 years old. If you average them out, it's about twelve months.
I think the general consensus of the article was that it was simply unconfirmed rumors. Nothing new.
Most cable providers give static IPs, and the conditions about VPN/servers, etc are all dependent on the ISP itself.
My ISP allows VPNs and LANs, but they just don't provide tech support with them. There is a clause about not using it as a server, but everyone I know does it, and no one has had their accounts canceled. I think they're just worried about people trying to host major websites on their boxes, and have the clause in there for legal reasons.
Because it cuts into money used from R&D. If you sell a product so that you just break even, you have FAR less cash to throw in the research department.
If you want to support AMD's R&D you can buy two CPUs then; use one and put the other one in a drawer. Then AMD will get as much $ from you as Intel would for a worse performing CPU, you have a backup CPU and warm fuzzy feeling from helping AMD's R&D.
Not really, AMD makes very little extra money off of the chips they sell, most of it goes into covering costs with very little to throw into R&D. In your example, you'd help them VERY little.
Didn't they say exactly that some 10 years ago, when the first RISC chips came? ;-)
:P PowerPC is gaining popularity, IA-64 will most likely begin fully replacing x86 in about 3-4 years.
Yep, and look what is happening: x86 is dying.
Yes, but not little slower. Didn't an 800 MHz Itanium perform roughly on par with a 50 MHz 486 on i386 code? I really don't think it's that slow, but if you'd like to show benchmarks to prove this, be my guest. :) Besides, why would you spend big bucks on a server-class 64-bit CPU, and then run 32-bit code? Doesn't make much sense.
Next thing they do is hop over to an AMD thread and beat Intel into the ground with trolls and flames, which kinda infers that they want Intel dead. The result would be a monopoly by AMD, which would be FAR worse than an Intel monopoly.
AMD does not "innovate", they "tweak" and "re-design" existing technologies for the most part, usually for shockingly low prices (which ends up cutting into R&D funds, which is VERY bad in the long run).
Athlon is great right now. But in a few years, developers and designers will have had enough with the current x86, and will want a better option: IA64. x86-64 is only good in the respect that it runs 32-bit code very fast, as well as support for 64-bit code which would (ideally) also run very fast.
The gest of it is that x86-64 is an "expansion" to the aging x86, which should have been ditched long ago to begin with. I seriously doubt that it'll take off faster than IA-64 will. IA-64 still runs 32-bit code, just slower. Personally, I'd invest in a chip with a brighter FUTURE, not for support for legacy applications (kinda like the Pentium 4 vs. Pentium III/Athlon debate).
Apple made DVD playing and writing a major selling point for its computers, so not having this in the initial release is a bit of a kick in the pants.
I dunno, but Diablo II didn't really seem like a major technological innovation. I think they're trying to make a big deal about a problem that doesn't exist.
It doesn't matter if the school has a good rep or a bad one, or whatever...the tests are all the same for the finals.
Didn't they encourage people to distribute copies of MS Office when it was first coming out?
You need to look at the system as a whole when comparing. For gaming, the PCs easily kick the Mac's ass (it's not even CLOSE). For Photoshop, the G4-powered systems usually come out ahead. But who really uses Photoshop that much? People who do nothing but photoshop should get a Mac, people who enjoy gaming should get a PC.
The PCs are about 4-5x faster in Quake III and similar games (GF2 Ultra vs. Rage128/GF2MX).
Macs are also restricted to PC100 (now PC133 with the G4+), while PCs have DDR SDRAM and RDRAM to choose from as well. And then there's the bus speed issue: 100MHz (now 133MHz with the G4+) for the G4, 400MHz + 266MHz for the PC market.
Altivec is a pain in the ass to program for, as well. Won't be seeing too many programs for it.
Yes, dedicated hardware is needed and is supposed to be provided for.
Um. Who cares if it is a re-packaged console? The thing is the architecture is consistent on all X-Boxes, so it's easy to develop for. On top of this, it's considerably cheaper than getting a similarly-equiped eMachine (The video card alone could cost around $300). I don't have a clue where you're coming from, amigo.:)
You act like it's just some software format difference. :P
If you want to explain how you'd get a normal CD into a slot built for a 2.5" disk, let me know.
The GeForce 2 Ultra is already at 250MHz (GTS is at 200MHz, MX is at 175MHz). The NV20 will most likely debut at 300MHz (note: The X-Box specs state a 300MHz NVIDIA processor, based off of NV20).
The Radeon has a version of this implemented, but (to be honest), the Radeon isn't really too powerful. Imagine a powerful NVIDIA chip loaded up with HSR, and you'd get up to 7x faster in complex scenes, while simple scenes would only be a bit faster (less hidden surfaces to begin with).
And I've been using it like this some months now.
Why Win98? Because many, many people who buy high-end systems tend to be hardcore gamers. Most hardcore gamers don't play under Win2K, they play under Win98. Thus, Win98 is used. (Also, it's the most popular OS)
1) b&w will be open-sourced. I remeber reading about this a few months ago, and the developer said it'd be free for other open-sourced games...interesting nonetheless You've read a bloated rumor. B&W's creator (Peter Molenaux (sp)) said that it'd be interesting if he open sourced it, although it'd be unlikely with his publisher and the like. He has expressed interest in doing it, it is by no means a final thing.
I'm becoming a tad irritated with people who keep bringing up that moot point.
First off, in complex scenes filled with gibs, smoke, and the like, framerates drop drastically.
Second of all, when things such as FSAA are enabled, visual quality increases and framerates drop accordingly.
Third of all, 60 fps now will mean about 15fps in new games in 2 years. I remember these exact same comments when the Voodoo 2 debuted. Are people inherently this nearsighted?
Please, people, think ahead.
The thing is, the Pentium 4 is slated to hit 2.0GHz by January 2001. The Athlons can't scale up as fast, and when they do scale up, they lose IPC like mad. Athlons and Pentium 4s are both good. However, the Pentium 4s will go faster in a shorter period of time (that was its design goal).