While my "conservative" friends get their news from Fox, my "progressive" friends get their news from Facebook.
I wont bother asking them what they "perceive" because I already know that my "progressive" friends are grounded in repeated hate slogans and sound bites, rather than actual understanding, while my "conservative" friends are grounded in whatever Fox is going on about.
I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power.
Of course.. fear is just the excuse, and its articles like this that reinforce the deception that the excuse is also the motivation. Americans arent afraid.. its just the people in power saying that Americans are afraid.
and it happened to cost money... that's what tax subsidies are for.
Lots of things cost money...
Let me translate what you just said: "Its too expensive, so we should make it so everyone pays for it so that it doesnt appear to be too expensive.. because appearances matter"
And I go over to the psychologist, and he says, "Emo, what does this inkblot look like to you?"
I said, "Oh, it's kind of embarrassing."
He said, "Emo, everyone sees something, so don't be embarrassed. Tell me what the inkblot looks like to you."
I said, "Well, to me it looks like standard pattern #3 in the Rorschach series to test obsessive compulsiveness." ..and he gets kind of depressed.
I said, "Okay, it's a butterfly." and he cheers up.
He said, "What does this inkblot look like?"
I said, "It looks like a horrible ugly blob of pure evil that sucks the souls of man into a vortex of sin and degradation."
He said, "No, um, the inkblot's over there. That's a photo of my wife you're looking at."
"Oh," I said, "was I far off?"
He said, "No. That's the sad part."
Where did the GGP say anything about the number of cores in his compile?
He didn't, because he doesnt know what information to include, because he doesnt know why his cpu usage was so low, because he doesnt know how to enable multi core compiling, because he doesn't know much about what he is talking about.
I was always (post 3DFX) an NVidia GPU user until this year, and it was the drivers and their negative effects that prevented me from choosing NVidia this time around.
It wasnt always that way. For the most part you could just use the latest drivers and everything would be OK, but about 2 years ago I started having issues where a game wouldnt work with one driver while another game wouldnt work with the ones that would work with... which bothered me but didnt push me over the edge. Then the reports in June of the newest drivers killing cards, and rendering horrible artifacts in many games...
Its a shame, because I was really eyeballing that vanilla GTX 650 that runs on 64 watts...
In the intrim I picked up an A10-6800K with its integrated HD 8670D which I am extremely impressed with (low expectations shattered), and now I am eyeballing the HD 7790 that runs on 85 watts.
The internet was around long before 1992 "the web" and "gopher", and network security was a serious issue then.
Hell, CERT Advisories were started in 1988. These advisories did not predate the internet, instead they were a response to growing security problems on the internet. In the 1980's most universities in the country were hooked up to the internet, and by the 1990's it was becoming a global standard pushing out the main competitors telenet and tymnet.
This CERT advisory is from 1989 and is a patch for the Berkeley passwd.c.
You appear to be an over-confident nub that doesnt even know the history.
Back then GCC was competing with the likes of VC5/VC6, so its not as much of a knock on how bad GCC was back then.
Most C and C++ compilers were completely atrocious on x86 even as little as 15 years ago. "Optimization" meant a little bit of non-extensive peep-hole.
There are types of optimizations that require every single source file (or at least a lower level proxy of them) loaded at the same time, and as such its quite common for large compiles to run out of memory even on systems with enormous amounts of memory. One implementation may handle the not-out-of-memory case better while another may handle the out-of-memory case better. This does not mean that either are pathologically wrong, but rather than the wrong tool was used for the job.
In GCC's case, there are two ways to enable this type of optimization and one of them is tailored to memory constraints while the other is not. I'm not sure about ICC, but given that TFA doesnt tell us any compiler flags at all we cannot presume that he isn't an even bigger idiot than he already appears to be (ex: using the options tailored for swapping out on one compiler, while not using that option on the others.)
And then the real kicker... Anyone seriously concerned about compilation speed wouldn't be using anything resembling the statement "full optimizations." -- The number of release builds should be very infrequent relative to the number of debug builds. A debug building benchmark might be an article worth reading even if it was done by this same practically worthless clown.
Of course, you could then look at this benchmark is more indicative of what people actually run
Word processors, web browsing, etc.. thats what you were thinking about, right?
I prefer to only consider what people actually wait for. You are of course right that most things that people do on a computer are single threaded, but nearly all of those very same things arent waited for by users because computers were more than fast enough for those tasks a decade ago. More performance has little to no benefit at all on those tasks.
and the highest benchmark score for AMD is so far down the list I got bored.
You got bored before looking at the first AMD part in the price range? Really?
"I see your true colors shining through"
(A) dont be a dishonest fuck about even small details (like you "getting bored"), especially obviously so, because nobody will believe the shit you are being honest about when so obviously dishonest elsewhere. We know that you are being a dishonest fuck because you then went on "same trend continues in every bracket" -- really, you all of a sudden werent bored anymore, but amazingly also didnt provide data? Thats twice now that you were being a dishonest fuck.
(B) Calling your data into question, I examined the data you provided in the same sentence about Intel the parts: you are wrong about which $120..$140 Intel part is the best Intel part in that price range for a single threaded score based on the very link you provided. There is at least one faster Intel parts in the price range, but then I "got bored" so there might be more that you missed.
Sloppy sloppy sloppy, and dishonest, dishonest, dishonest. Why should anyone pay attention to you?
P.S: Learn how to use a fucking spreadsheet (cut and paste the whole page, fool) Then you avoid being sloppy, don't need to be dishonest, and don't have to be guessing about brackets that you made assertive statements about but were "too bored" to actually put yourself into a position where you would actually know what you were talking about.
Just to clarify, breaking up the list into $20 segments:
$80...$100 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 3781 with the G3430, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 4353 with the AMD A8-5600K
$100..$120 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4399 with the i3-3225, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 6401 with the FX-6300.
$120..$140 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4928 with the i3-4130, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 6609 with the FX-8120.
$140..$160 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4831 with the i3-3250, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 8134 with the FX-8320.
$160..$180 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 6202 with the i5-3350P. AMD has no parts in this price segment but still wins using any of the previous 3.
$180..$200 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 7018 with the i5-4570, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 9082 with the FX-8350
Intel "wins" most of the remaining segments by default like it did the $160..$180 segment, but doesn't surpass the $180..$200 winner in performance until you spend $264.99 on the Xeon E3-1240 V2.
So the facts are that AMD not only continues to win the performance per dollar comparison, they are still completely dominating it. Sure, if you are going to spend $300+ just on a CPU then Intel wont let you down, but it takes someone very bad at math to claim that Intel is even close to competing in the performance per dollar comparison. BOOM! HEADSHOT
You seem to be missing the point. Nothing was shut off. For web pages, some pages were changed. Thats not shutting them off. For parks, people were hired to erect barriers to entry and thats not shutting them off either. So the bills keep coming in for a services that are only down "in spirit"...
We could go on and on about this, with you continually needing to be intentionally vague and launching personal attacks....
Why are the practical alternatives to deferred shading?
Regardless of which methods you use, you've gotta sacrifice something. Forward rendering doesnt do so well with lots of dynamic lights, deferred shading doesn't do so well with lots of materials, and deferred lighting doesn't do so well with lots of geometry.
(although keep in mind that many GPUs render at 4x the screen resolution or more to support antialiasing)
This is SSAA and on both AMD and nVidia its a choice that must be intentionally made these days. Only very early generation video cards were limited to supporting SSAA. The default on modern cards is always some variant of MSAA, which at its base level only anti-aliases the edges of polygons. MSAA has the advantage that for the same processing power, the edges can have a lot more samples per pixel taken than they would with SSAA. (ie, MSAAx16 is similar in performance to SSAAx4)
There was a blip in between the first AA's and now where MSAA didnt work, when DX9 first appeared, due to a rendering technique called Deferred Shading which only ran shaders as a final pass on the "final" screen pixels. Deferred Shading was good on early DX9 hardware because shaders were still a very limited resource that was eaten up by overdraw, while memory bandwidth was a very abundant resource in comparison. MSAA didnt work because when the shaders were finally run, information about where polygon edges was unavailable. Now memory bandwidth is comparatively a far less abundant resource relative to shaders now, so Deferred Shading isnt used nearly as often as it was with those first DX9 games. Additionally, both AMD and nVidia now implement driver hacks for popular Deferred Shading games so that MSAA still works on them.
In the middle of the article it is pointing out that Intels 22nm chips use gates that are 35nm long with channel lengths that are 30nm long, so it seems odd that people are worried about what GlobalFoundaries will be misnaming their not-yet-in-production 3D chips when Intel is already misnaming their already-in-production 3D chips.
I'll trade $20k in vehicle damages against $200k in human damages any day.
The trouble is that the frequency of $200k human damages in the steel vehicle is orders of magnitude lower than the frequency of $20k vehicle damages in the crumplematic, so the 'trade" that you are making isnt the one that you claim.
Slashdot Mirror
While my "conservative" friends get their news from Fox, my "progressive" friends get their news from Facebook.
I wont bother asking them what they "perceive" because I already know that my "progressive" friends are grounded in repeated hate slogans and sound bites, rather than actual understanding, while my "conservative" friends are grounded in whatever Fox is going on about.
I get my national political news from C-SPAN.
The sad fact is that there is no incentive to be an informed voter. The effort is too great relative to the "payoff" for putting in that effort.
I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power.
Of course.. fear is just the excuse, and its articles like this that reinforce the deception that the excuse is also the motivation. Americans arent afraid.. its just the people in power saying that Americans are afraid.
Fox News may play fast and loose with the facts, but that doesnt change the fact that sources like MSNBC are much much worse.
CNN: 54% factual reporting, 46% commentary/opinion.
FOX: 45% factual reporting, 55% commentary/opinion.
MSNBC: 15% factual reporting, 85% commentary/opinion.
Here is the full report.
and it happened to cost money... that's what tax subsidies are for.
Lots of things cost money...
Let me translate what you just said: "Its too expensive, so we should make it so everyone pays for it so that it doesnt appear to be too expensive.. because appearances matter"
Oh look, the dishonest fuck is hiding as anonymous now. Whats the matter, dont like taking credit for being a dishonest fuck?
uh, what?
Now you appear to be an over-confident nub that knows that he doesnt know the history, but wants to pretend that he does anyways.
And I go over to the psychologist, and he says, "Emo, what does this inkblot look like to you?"
..and he gets kind of depressed.
I said, "Oh, it's kind of embarrassing."
He said, "Emo, everyone sees something, so don't be embarrassed. Tell me what the inkblot looks like to you."
I said, "Well, to me it looks like standard pattern #3 in the Rorschach series to test obsessive compulsiveness."
I said, "Okay, it's a butterfly." and he cheers up.
He said, "What does this inkblot look like?"
I said, "It looks like a horrible ugly blob of pure evil that sucks the souls of man into a vortex of sin and degradation."
He said, "No, um, the inkblot's over there. That's a photo of my wife you're looking at."
"Oh," I said, "was I far off?"
He said, "No. That's the sad part."
- Emo Philips
Hulu less customer-rapey? Really?
For fuck sakes you give them $8 per month and then they give you 12 commercials per half hour sitcom.
Where did the GGP say anything about the number of cores in his compile?
He didn't, because he doesnt know what information to include, because he doesnt know why his cpu usage was so low, because he doesnt know how to enable multi core compiling, because he doesn't know much about what he is talking about.
I was always (post 3DFX) an NVidia GPU user until this year, and it was the drivers and their negative effects that prevented me from choosing NVidia this time around.
It wasnt always that way. For the most part you could just use the latest drivers and everything would be OK, but about 2 years ago I started having issues where a game wouldnt work with one driver while another game wouldnt work with the ones that would work with... which bothered me but didnt push me over the edge. Then the reports in June of the newest drivers killing cards, and rendering horrible artifacts in many games...
Its a shame, because I was really eyeballing that vanilla GTX 650 that runs on 64 watts...
In the intrim I picked up an A10-6800K with its integrated HD 8670D which I am extremely impressed with (low expectations shattered), and now I am eyeballing the HD 7790 that runs on 85 watts.
The internet was around long before 1992 "the web" and "gopher", and network security was a serious issue then.
Hell, CERT Advisories were started in 1988. These advisories did not predate the internet, instead they were a response to growing security problems on the internet. In the 1980's most universities in the country were hooked up to the internet, and by the 1990's it was becoming a global standard pushing out the main competitors telenet and tymnet.
This CERT advisory is from 1989 and is a patch for the Berkeley passwd.c.
You appear to be an over-confident nub that doesnt even know the history.
Back then GCC was competing with the likes of VC5/VC6, so its not as much of a knock on how bad GCC was back then.
Most C and C++ compilers were completely atrocious on x86 even as little as 15 years ago. "Optimization" meant a little bit of non-extensive peep-hole.
There are types of optimizations that require every single source file (or at least a lower level proxy of them) loaded at the same time, and as such its quite common for large compiles to run out of memory even on systems with enormous amounts of memory. One implementation may handle the not-out-of-memory case better while another may handle the out-of-memory case better. This does not mean that either are pathologically wrong, but rather than the wrong tool was used for the job.
In GCC's case, there are two ways to enable this type of optimization and one of them is tailored to memory constraints while the other is not. I'm not sure about ICC, but given that TFA doesnt tell us any compiler flags at all we cannot presume that he isn't an even bigger idiot than he already appears to be (ex: using the options tailored for swapping out on one compiler, while not using that option on the others.)
And then the real kicker... Anyone seriously concerned about compilation speed wouldn't be using anything resembling the statement "full optimizations." -- The number of release builds should be very infrequent relative to the number of debug builds. A debug building benchmark might be an article worth reading even if it was done by this same practically worthless clown.
sigh...
His 20% is 1 of 6 cores (16.666%) plus a little bit.
Doesnt seem like anyone here even has a cursory understanding...
Of course, you could then look at this benchmark is more indicative of what people actually run
Word processors, web browsing, etc.. thats what you were thinking about, right?
I prefer to only consider what people actually wait for. You are of course right that most things that people do on a computer are single threaded, but nearly all of those very same things arent waited for by users because computers were more than fast enough for those tasks a decade ago. More performance has little to no benefit at all on those tasks.
and the highest benchmark score for AMD is so far down the list I got bored.
You got bored before looking at the first AMD part in the price range? Really?
"I see your true colors shining through"
(A) dont be a dishonest fuck about even small details (like you "getting bored"), especially obviously so, because nobody will believe the shit you are being honest about when so obviously dishonest elsewhere. We know that you are being a dishonest fuck because you then went on "same trend continues in every bracket" -- really, you all of a sudden werent bored anymore, but amazingly also didnt provide data? Thats twice now that you were being a dishonest fuck.
(B) Calling your data into question, I examined the data you provided in the same sentence about Intel the parts: you are wrong about which $120..$140 Intel part is the best Intel part in that price range for a single threaded score based on the very link you provided. There is at least one faster Intel parts in the price range, but then I "got bored" so there might be more that you missed.
Sloppy sloppy sloppy, and dishonest, dishonest, dishonest. Why should anyone pay attention to you?
P.S: Learn how to use a fucking spreadsheet (cut and paste the whole page, fool) Then you avoid being sloppy, don't need to be dishonest, and don't have to be guessing about brackets that you made assertive statements about but were "too bored" to actually put yourself into a position where you would actually know what you were talking about.
Just to clarify, breaking up the list into $20 segments:
$80...$100 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 3781 with the G3430, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 4353 with the AMD A8-5600K
$100..$120 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4399 with the i3-3225, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 6401 with the FX-6300.
$120..$140 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4928 with the i3-4130, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 6609 with the FX-8120.
$140..$160 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 4831 with the i3-3250, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 8134 with the FX-8320.
$160..$180 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 6202 with the i5-3350P. AMD has no parts in this price segment but still wins using any of the previous 3.
$180..$200 The highest benchmark score for Intel is 7018 with the i5-4570, and the highest benchmark score for AMD is 9082 with the FX-8350
Intel "wins" most of the remaining segments by default like it did the $160..$180 segment, but doesn't surpass the $180..$200 winner in performance until you spend $264.99 on the Xeon E3-1240 V2.
So the facts are that AMD not only continues to win the performance per dollar comparison, they are still completely dominating it. Sure, if you are going to spend $300+ just on a CPU then Intel wont let you down, but it takes someone very bad at math to claim that Intel is even close to competing in the performance per dollar comparison. BOOM! HEADSHOT
Which service was shut off, exactly?
...
You seem to be missing the point. Nothing was shut off. For web pages, some pages were changed. Thats not shutting them off. For parks, people were hired to erect barriers to entry and thats not shutting them off either. So the bills keep coming in for a services that are only down "in spirit"
We could go on and on about this, with you continually needing to be intentionally vague and launching personal attacks....
So you want to waste your video memory when you arent using the GPU?
Sure, if you ignore either the price or the performance you can imagine your statement to be true.
...which is why they did it for free, rather than get paid...
Oh, wait... what you said didnt actually respond to his point? Yeah.
Why are the practical alternatives to deferred shading?
Regardless of which methods you use, you've gotta sacrifice something. Forward rendering doesnt do so well with lots of dynamic lights, deferred shading doesn't do so well with lots of materials, and deferred lighting doesn't do so well with lots of geometry.
(although keep in mind that many GPUs render at 4x the screen resolution or more to support antialiasing)
This is SSAA and on both AMD and nVidia its a choice that must be intentionally made these days. Only very early generation video cards were limited to supporting SSAA. The default on modern cards is always some variant of MSAA, which at its base level only anti-aliases the edges of polygons. MSAA has the advantage that for the same processing power, the edges can have a lot more samples per pixel taken than they would with SSAA. (ie, MSAAx16 is similar in performance to SSAAx4)
There was a blip in between the first AA's and now where MSAA didnt work, when DX9 first appeared, due to a rendering technique called Deferred Shading which only ran shaders as a final pass on the "final" screen pixels. Deferred Shading was good on early DX9 hardware because shaders were still a very limited resource that was eaten up by overdraw, while memory bandwidth was a very abundant resource in comparison. MSAA didnt work because when the shaders were finally run, information about where polygon edges was unavailable. Now memory bandwidth is comparatively a far less abundant resource relative to shaders now, so Deferred Shading isnt used nearly as often as it was with those first DX9 games. Additionally, both AMD and nVidia now implement driver hacks for popular Deferred Shading games so that MSAA still works on them.
In the middle of the article it is pointing out that Intels 22nm chips use gates that are 35nm long with channel lengths that are 30nm long, so it seems odd that people are worried about what GlobalFoundaries will be misnaming their not-yet-in-production 3D chips when Intel is already misnaming their already-in-production 3D chips.
I just got a letter saying that I have to pay a fee for not subscribing to a cable television plan...
I'll trade $20k in vehicle damages against $200k in human damages any day.
The trouble is that the frequency of $200k human damages in the steel vehicle is orders of magnitude lower than the frequency of $20k vehicle damages in the crumplematic, so the 'trade" that you are making isnt the one that you claim.