What high school did you go to Hemos? Christ, I didn't learn anything resembling that in High School. But then again, I majored in smoking pot and being opressed by jocks.
Seriously though, it's gonna cheese me off in a major way if all my l33t hardware skills get obliterated by some wierd-ass bio freaks. In all, it was an amazing article... that parts I could understand at least.
I loved the article (Ars is quite good for both sides of hardware), but am I the only person who finds it somehow strange to read about this kind of technology in reference to gaming?
I guess I will have to give it up, but I used to never buy the "gaming drives the industry" argument that you hear from so many Wintel folks. But here, with the PS2, and all of the problems they're having, and the technology and whatnot, everything seems very different from my day. When I played console games, the only thing that mattered were what platforms supported what titles! Props to Toshiba on an impressive core.
It looks like lots of people do care, considering that their server is slammed. And does the word millenium appear anywhere? And the fact that they do this every year plays into this how? Half-Life rules!
I second that. I'm not a CPU engineer or any such person, but I do appreciate the more complex discussion that got away from benchmarks in photoshop (which is what I was expecting to see). The fact that this comparison was technical in form but understandable to me is what I liked the most. I wish some of the more over-the-top advocates out there (on BOTH sides) would take the time to really read an understand the technology behind the CPU's. Where I work there's probably a CPU argument everyday (cool place I know:), but stuff like in this article never gets mentioned. I do have one complaint however. Even if the information is very informative, I do think that it would be good to separate out the general information from the specific information. Still, a good read was had by me.
Re:No real information here - way too simplified
on
G4 vs. Athlon Review
·
· Score: 2
Not to boost your ego any more, but get a grip buddy. Have you seen any other articles that talk about this kind of material? It may be too simple for you, especially since I'm sure that you "know it all" already, but I think this article is a great example of what I would like to see more of on the 'net: some discussion rooted in real technology instead of PR claims and advocate BS. I don't know it all, I'll readily admit, and such an article is very useful for me to see the hows and whys and wherefores. But for you to say that there is "no real information here" is a joke. You're either an elitist prick, or someone who just wants to kick dirt at an informative article.
Where is he making these arguments? Were are you getting this information from?
All I can see is you making claims that the author didn't make. He tries to move the debate to a useful level. If you want to talk about an architecture whose instructions pipeline cleanly, aren't you talking about performance oriented concerns? And if so, why are you unwilling to look at the aftereffects of implementation.
As Ditzel has said, the theory is useful in practice because you end up with a FINAL PRODUCT that is every bit as wieldy as CISC.
Now, you can do what many RISC supports do and try to continually refine what RISC means, but all you are doing there is playing "essentialist" games and missing the point: there's more in common now between so-called RISC and CISC CPUs than anyone ever imagined. If that's the case, then the distinction is hardly worth what marketers and trumpeters on web sites make it out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
See above. Thursday, the second part of the article comes out.
What high school did you go to Hemos? Christ, I didn't learn anything resembling that in High School. But then again, I majored in smoking pot and being opressed by jocks.
Seriously though, it's gonna cheese me off in a major way if all my l33t hardware skills get obliterated by some wierd-ass bio freaks. In all, it was an amazing article... that parts I could understand at least.
Must resist!
I guess I will have to give it up, but I used to never buy the "gaming drives the industry" argument that you hear from so many Wintel folks. But here, with the PS2, and all of the problems they're having, and the technology and whatnot, everything seems very different from my day. When I played console games, the only thing that mattered were what platforms supported what titles! Props to Toshiba on an impressive core.
It looks like lots of people do care, considering that their server is slammed. And does the word millenium appear anywhere? And the fact that they do this every year plays into this how? Half-Life rules!
I second that. I'm not a CPU engineer or any such person, but I do appreciate the more complex discussion that got away from benchmarks in photoshop (which is what I was expecting to see). The fact that this comparison was technical in form but understandable to me is what I liked the most. I wish some of the more over-the-top advocates out there (on BOTH sides) would take the time to really read an understand the technology behind the CPU's. Where I work there's probably a CPU argument everyday (cool place I know :), but stuff like in this article never gets mentioned. I do have one complaint however. Even if the information is very informative, I do think that it would be good to separate out the general information from the specific information. Still, a good read was had by me.
Not to boost your ego any more, but get a grip buddy. Have you seen any other articles that talk about this kind of material? It may be too simple for you, especially since I'm sure that you "know it all" already, but I think this article is a great example of what I would like to see more of on the 'net: some discussion rooted in real technology instead of PR claims and advocate BS. I don't know it all, I'll readily admit, and such an article is very useful for me to see the hows and whys and wherefores. But for you to say that there is "no real information here" is a joke. You're either an elitist prick, or someone who just wants to kick dirt at an informative article.
Oh the times, they are a-changin'. I forsee it now: Sun is going to make serious claims on the embedded market. I enjoyed the article.
All I can see is you making claims that the author didn't make. He tries to move the debate to a useful level. If you want to talk about an architecture whose instructions pipeline cleanly, aren't you talking about performance oriented concerns? And if so, why are you unwilling to look at the aftereffects of implementation.
As Ditzel has said, the theory is useful in practice because you end up with a FINAL PRODUCT that is every bit as wieldy as CISC.
Now, you can do what many RISC supports do and try to continually refine what RISC means, but all you are doing there is playing "essentialist" games and missing the point: there's more in common now between so-called RISC and CISC CPUs than anyone ever imagined. If that's the case, then the distinction is hardly worth what marketers and trumpeters on web sites make it out to be.