I think what a lot of games do is they also give these cosmetics out as rewards for winning, early adopting, and so forth. So you want to look like a winning or early adopting player you can by buying a cosmetic.
I think this pulls the issue out of the realm of stupidity and into the real of poor priorities.
I am wondering why the EFF doesnt host free unspied upon best practices email for anyone that wants. The cost of doing that has only grown smaller and smaller over the decades.
And that about sums up AMD vs Intel. Same as the last time AMD had a performance edge. They picked up some market share from people trying to save money
So, do they perform better, or are they cheaper? Your argument immediately says both as if they are mutually exclusive.
Translation: You had to defend Intel... somehow... anyway you could... making no sense is one of those ways.
Someone using their laptop as a workstation. Apple has certainly made a market for this with their Pro laptops so people like this must not actually be rare.
Personally I too seek a lot of power in a small form factor for my desk (seriously considering building my own mini-itx case), but not a god damned laptop.
DDR4 only uses more power if you go for the higher clocks. At equivalent clocks, DDR4 is supposed to use 40% less power than DDR3. Its the whole reason why they can clock DDR4 higher before running into a burdensome heat issue.
The real issue may be that at equivalent clocks, DDR4 has meaningfully higher latencies than DDR3 does. Mobile processors generally dont have large caches, so memory latency could potentially be beyond an inflection point until CPU's get even faster.
What you have admitted is that (a) you didnt know in the past that AMD wasnt moving to a competitive process size and thus the poor performance was a surprise to you. And also (b) you didnt know in the present that AMD was moving to a competitive process size and thus the good performance was a surprise to you.
The common factor here is you not knowing what was important to know. Even n the face of you talking about Intels tick-tock repeatedly in the past, you still didnt know that process size matters. Its fucking hilarious. You are a fucking joke of a nerd.
Is it crazy that I am thinking of building a new system designed to be underclocked?
There are some serious advantages. The obvious is the sudden ability to not give any craps at all about cooling, but the not-so-obvious are the form factors such a system can then take. I am seriously considering this 7.56" x 8.27" x 2.44" case for a desktop system.
Even quad channel memory cant keep up with the demands of 32 x86 cores on most of the things people want 32 cores for. This is due to the design of the x86 caches leaning towards lower latency instead of towards higher bandwidth. GPU's with lots of "cores" of course have the opposite problem, terrible latency.
Intel isnt making any of the current "compute performance" chips. Thats companies like Google contracting out to companies like TSMC to produce custom chips like the Tensor Processing Unit.
The big joke is that TPU's are coming off old 28nm fabs. Intel has been closing these while TSMC/etc are still making some big bucks on them.
Intels key problem is their vertical business structure. The rent-a-fabs are winning. Intels dirty business practices that forced AMD so spin off their fabs into a rent-a-fab that will be first to 7nm is pure fucking gold comedy. Intel is right fucked until it breaks itself up.
RISC is a solution looking for a problem at this point. While you dont need a complicated decoder on RISC, If you want to perform as well as x86 while being RISCy then you need more instruction fetch bandwidth going into the decoder than x86 needs. Its a tradeoff that does not favor RISC, which is why it lost. RISC was winning up until the moment that CPU's went super-scaler, at which point the instruction fetch shortcoming becomes a losing burden.
As far i know, this translator is actually quite tiny.
Not only is it tiny, its a necessary thing for chips to approach optimality that they have instructions that produce more than one "minimalist" operation. The rate that they could feed the execution units on pure RISC chips was THE bottleneck, and probably still is, that keeps RISC from winning the performance game.
It isnt just the lack of read-modify-write instructions either, but it is a fine example of the RISC problem. On x86 an instruction like "add [dword ptr address], eax" is turned into 3 uops within the decoder that are equivalent to a RISCy implementation of the 3 inherent "simple" operation. The thing is the RISCy version requires 3 times as much instruction fetch as the x86 equivalent.
During the height of the RISC vs CISC war, processors were limited to 8 bytes of bandwidth per clock cycle for the instruction fetcher while at the same time were introducing "super scaler" features. If you wanted your architecture to execute 2 operations per clock cycle, then it had better be able to fit their encoding into the 8 bytes of the fetcher. In this example RISC requires that the address be stated twice in the instruction stream and that alone is already 8 bytes for 32-bit systems. The read-modify-write x86 equivalent only requires that the address be stated once, AND ALSO only needs to encode 1 instruction. So on x86 the 3 operations could be pipelined in one cycle with instruction bandwidth to spare while on say ALPHA it required multiple cycles due to its instruction fetch bottleneck.
RISC is a label for one of the extreme ends of architecture design, and its not optimal. Nobody is doing the other extreme end, which also isn't optimal.
If the production cost of a new card can be reduced then you can most likely reduce the cost of the previous-gen card just as easily.
This all doesnt follow. The primary driver of production costs at the high end is the cost for the fab time. Some fabs are now producing 10nm chips, but time on these fabs costs much more than time on the previous generations 14/16nm node, and time on much older nodes like 28nm are now dirt cheap. Some of the 28nm fabs have even been shut down for conversion to smaller node production already. nVidea's flagships are currently on 14nm / 16nm, and the only way to make them much cheaper is for someone to open more 10nm fabs freeing up time on 14/16nm fabs. Meanwhile the next generation cards will be on 10nm and outside of thousand dollar devices, good luck reasonably funding fab time.
An example of where this did NOT happen was with Intel vs. the most recent generation of AMD chips. AMD came out stronger than anybody expected
Well thats bullshit. It was known ahead of time that AMD was moving to a smaller node and would thus make up the entire difference. Anybody that didnt know, doesnt know shit and should never be listened to on these subjects. Seriously. Apparently that includes you.
Additionally, Intel did move several generations ahead with their Core architecture, even getting to 14nm while the competition was still on 28nm. Intels failing was not neglecting to seize the moment, but in the very point on the table. Intels R&D failure was in trying to get their lucky ahead-of-its-time 14nm 3D tri-gates into the realm of practicality at 10nm, which is so apparently not possible that Intel has completely abandoned their 3D tri-gate effort, the very thing that put them so far ahead to begin with.
Not only is Intel at best at equality, they will be a node behind by this time next year.
And before people start saying "but Intels 14nm is better than others".. its bullshit. Intel are the ones that invented lying about process size and their old 14nm 3D tri-gates are not as good as anyones current 14nm or 16nm processes, which is why Intel had to switch back to the traditional transistors designs everyone else is using that require fewer lithography steps.
That was probably a side effect of the compression algorithm -- in order to fit all of that voice data into the tiny cartridge, it had to be smashed way down in size and therefore lose some of the finer things like the fricative sounds involved in letters like "P".
How cute, you think hardware of the era was fast enough to decompress audio in realtime.
Are they right? it depends what you are looking for.
The solution Google is offering is actually overly generic to the point of needing large die areas to solve anything useful in a reasonable amount of time. Google's example isnt one of efficiency. They are still throwing large racks of silicon at the same problems, and any honest comparison is surely going to include a discussion of cost per solution.
Enron could only do what it did because California thought it was better than the free market at setting energy prices. The ensuing arbitrage across State lines was PREDICTABLE, the politicians of California were WARNED IT WOULD HAPPEN, but they thought their good intentions would beat market forces... again.
You Californians are suckers for excuses that cover for Californian political stupidity.
No, you could not. Capitalism means free markets, and outlawing AirBnB is incompatible with free markets.
Even if one holds the opinion that not all markets should be free, can anyone give a reasonable answer as to why this market shouldn't be?
Just from a property rights perspective, its hard to argue that the owner of a property shouldn't be allowed to come to a mutual agreement with any willing party about who may sleep in a particular room tonight.
If anything, Hotels have a right to argue that they are over-regulated, while the argument that all their market pressures should be met with ridiculous regulations put upon the pesky newcomers is absurd.
USB wasn't intended for storage devices to begin with.
Even if this were true (it isn't) you are grossly naive.
It was meant for relatively simple/stupid peripherals like keyboards, mice and sound cards.
The USB mass storage class (USB MSC) is close to the safest of them.
A rogue USB device that declares itself a keyboard (HID) can do pretty much anything it wants to your machine, such as open a terminal window, write some code into a source file, compile it, and then execute it.
This isnt just speculation.. it was labeled "BadUSB" and was one of the main topics at the Black Hat USA conference in 2014: here is a video of one of the talks.
But thats for playing the "I'm know I'm ignorant but I am still going to act like an expert" game... YOU WIN!
Which Hitler backpedaled on when he came to power.
Does it matter? He roses to power preaching socialism and workers rights, therefore his base of support consisted of people that wanted socialism and workers rights. Those are the people that became concentration camp guards and worked in his war factories. Hitler drove the message all the way from the left, through the extreme left, and settling on the extreme right. The socialist workers right people because the extreme right, not like the narrative you fucks have been spinning where people like Dave Rubin are "extreme right."
..and today the left is attacking Trump from the right with their McCarthyism and their pro-war pro-bombing position on the middle east
I'm talking about what actually happened in Germany, facts in evidence due to the films of over a decade of Hitlers speeches. What are you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
I think what a lot of games do is they also give these cosmetics out as rewards for winning, early adopting, and so forth. So you want to look like a winning or early adopting player you can by buying a cosmetic.
I think this pulls the issue out of the realm of stupidity and into the real of poor priorities.
I am wondering why the EFF doesnt host free unspied upon best practices email for anyone that wants. The cost of doing that has only grown smaller and smaller over the decades.
And that about sums up AMD vs Intel. Same as the last time AMD had a performance edge. They picked up some market share from people trying to save money
So, do they perform better, or are they cheaper? Your argument immediately says both as if they are mutually exclusive.
Translation: You had to defend Intel... somehow... anyway you could... making no sense is one of those ways.
but then who need a 128gb laptop ?
Someone using their laptop as a workstation. Apple has certainly made a market for this with their Pro laptops so people like this must not actually be rare.
Personally I too seek a lot of power in a small form factor for my desk (seriously considering building my own mini-itx case), but not a god damned laptop.
DDR4 only uses more power if you go for the higher clocks. At equivalent clocks, DDR4 is supposed to use 40% less power than DDR3. Its the whole reason why they can clock DDR4 higher before running into a burdensome heat issue.
The real issue may be that at equivalent clocks, DDR4 has meaningfully higher latencies than DDR3 does. Mobile processors generally dont have large caches, so memory latency could potentially be beyond an inflection point until CPU's get even faster.
You saying it doesnt make it true.
What you have admitted is that (a) you didnt know in the past that AMD wasnt moving to a competitive process size and thus the poor performance was a surprise to you. And also (b) you didnt know in the present that AMD was moving to a competitive process size and thus the good performance was a surprise to you.
The common factor here is you not knowing what was important to know. Even n the face of you talking about Intels tick-tock repeatedly in the past, you still didnt know that process size matters. Its fucking hilarious. You are a fucking joke of a nerd.
Most if not all the 8-bit systems of the 80's had so little ram that it was actually not easy to write even bad games for them.
Is it crazy that I am thinking of building a new system designed to be underclocked?
There are some serious advantages. The obvious is the sudden ability to not give any craps at all about cooling, but the not-so-obvious are the form factors such a system can then take. I am seriously considering this 7.56" x 8.27" x 2.44" case for a desktop system.
Even quad channel memory cant keep up with the demands of 32 x86 cores on most of the things people want 32 cores for. This is due to the design of the x86 caches leaning towards lower latency instead of towards higher bandwidth. GPU's with lots of "cores" of course have the opposite problem, terrible latency.
Intel isnt making any of the current "compute performance" chips. Thats companies like Google contracting out to companies like TSMC to produce custom chips like the Tensor Processing Unit.
The big joke is that TPU's are coming off old 28nm fabs. Intel has been closing these while TSMC/etc are still making some big bucks on them.
Intels key problem is their vertical business structure. The rent-a-fabs are winning. Intels dirty business practices that forced AMD so spin off their fabs into a rent-a-fab that will be first to 7nm is pure fucking gold comedy. Intel is right fucked until it breaks itself up.
RISC is a solution looking for a problem at this point. While you dont need a complicated decoder on RISC, If you want to perform as well as x86 while being RISCy then you need more instruction fetch bandwidth going into the decoder than x86 needs. Its a tradeoff that does not favor RISC, which is why it lost. RISC was winning up until the moment that CPU's went super-scaler, at which point the instruction fetch shortcoming becomes a losing burden.
As far i know, this translator is actually quite tiny.
Not only is it tiny, its a necessary thing for chips to approach optimality that they have instructions that produce more than one "minimalist" operation. The rate that they could feed the execution units on pure RISC chips was THE bottleneck, and probably still is, that keeps RISC from winning the performance game.
It isnt just the lack of read-modify-write instructions either, but it is a fine example of the RISC problem. On x86 an instruction like "add [dword ptr address], eax" is turned into 3 uops within the decoder that are equivalent to a RISCy implementation of the 3 inherent "simple" operation. The thing is the RISCy version requires 3 times as much instruction fetch as the x86 equivalent.
During the height of the RISC vs CISC war, processors were limited to 8 bytes of bandwidth per clock cycle for the instruction fetcher while at the same time were introducing "super scaler" features. If you wanted your architecture to execute 2 operations per clock cycle, then it had better be able to fit their encoding into the 8 bytes of the fetcher. In this example RISC requires that the address be stated twice in the instruction stream and that alone is already 8 bytes for 32-bit systems. The read-modify-write x86 equivalent only requires that the address be stated once, AND ALSO only needs to encode 1 instruction. So on x86 the 3 operations could be pipelined in one cycle with instruction bandwidth to spare while on say ALPHA it required multiple cycles due to its instruction fetch bottleneck.
RISC is a label for one of the extreme ends of architecture design, and its not optimal. Nobody is doing the other extreme end, which also isn't optimal.
If the production cost of a new card can be reduced then you can most likely reduce the cost of the previous-gen card just as easily.
This all doesnt follow. The primary driver of production costs at the high end is the cost for the fab time. Some fabs are now producing 10nm chips, but time on these fabs costs much more than time on the previous generations 14/16nm node, and time on much older nodes like 28nm are now dirt cheap. Some of the 28nm fabs have even been shut down for conversion to smaller node production already. nVidea's flagships are currently on 14nm / 16nm, and the only way to make them much cheaper is for someone to open more 10nm fabs freeing up time on 14/16nm fabs. Meanwhile the next generation cards will be on 10nm and outside of thousand dollar devices, good luck reasonably funding fab time.
An example of where this did NOT happen was with Intel vs. the most recent generation of AMD chips. AMD came out stronger than anybody expected
Well thats bullshit. It was known ahead of time that AMD was moving to a smaller node and would thus make up the entire difference. Anybody that didnt know, doesnt know shit and should never be listened to on these subjects. Seriously. Apparently that includes you.
.. its bullshit. Intel are the ones that invented lying about process size and their old 14nm 3D tri-gates are not as good as anyones current 14nm or 16nm processes, which is why Intel had to switch back to the traditional transistors designs everyone else is using that require fewer lithography steps.
Additionally, Intel did move several generations ahead with their Core architecture, even getting to 14nm while the competition was still on 28nm. Intels failing was not neglecting to seize the moment, but in the very point on the table. Intels R&D failure was in trying to get their lucky ahead-of-its-time 14nm 3D tri-gates into the realm of practicality at 10nm, which is so apparently not possible that Intel has completely abandoned their 3D tri-gate effort, the very thing that put them so far ahead to begin with.
Not only is Intel at best at equality, they will be a node behind by this time next year.
And before people start saying "but Intels 14nm is better than others"
As someone that has started to cart-up a new system on newegg, it has also come to my attention that ram prices definitely fucking blow right now.
That was probably a side effect of the compression algorithm -- in order to fit all of that voice data into the tiny cartridge, it had to be smashed way down in size and therefore lose some of the finer things like the fricative sounds involved in letters like "P".
How cute, you think hardware of the era was fast enough to decompress audio in realtime.
after forcing Canada to capitulate on IP
Canada was not forced to do anything. The U.S. didnt threaten to nuke Canada if it didn't "capitulate."
Turns out that when you trade for something you gotta give something in return. Free trade is win-win so long as both parties are rational.
Are they right? it depends what you are looking for.
The solution Google is offering is actually overly generic to the point of needing large die areas to solve anything useful in a reasonable amount of time. Google's example isnt one of efficiency. They are still throwing large racks of silicon at the same problems, and any honest comparison is surely going to include a discussion of cost per solution.
Spoken like someone that only likes half of the story in order to protect the demonstrably bad Statist price fixing ethic they have.
but thanks for playing the information game.
Enron could only do what it did because California thought it was better than the free market at setting energy prices. The ensuing arbitrage across State lines was PREDICTABLE, the politicians of California were WARNED IT WOULD HAPPEN, but they thought their good intentions would beat market forces... again.
You Californians are suckers for excuses that cover for Californian political stupidity.
Enron wouldn't have been a thing at all if the State of California hadn't have been in the business of fixing energy prices.
No, you could not. Capitalism means free markets, and outlawing AirBnB is incompatible with free markets.
Even if one holds the opinion that not all markets should be free, can anyone give a reasonable answer as to why this market shouldn't be?
Just from a property rights perspective, its hard to argue that the owner of a property shouldn't be allowed to come to a mutual agreement with any willing party about who may sleep in a particular room tonight.
If anything, Hotels have a right to argue that they are over-regulated, while the argument that all their market pressures should be met with ridiculous regulations put upon the pesky newcomers is absurd.
If Greenshot also has dumb "sharing" features built in, then at least they have the excuse that they arent the damn operating system.
USB wasn't intended for storage devices to begin with.
Even if this were true (it isn't) you are grossly naive.
It was meant for relatively simple/stupid peripherals like keyboards, mice and sound cards.
The USB mass storage class (USB MSC) is close to the safest of them.
A rogue USB device that declares itself a keyboard (HID) can do pretty much anything it wants to your machine, such as open a terminal window, write some code into a source file, compile it, and then execute it.
This isnt just speculation.. it was labeled "BadUSB" and was one of the main topics at the Black Hat USA conference in 2014: here is a video of one of the talks.
But thats for playing the "I'm know I'm ignorant but I am still going to act like an expert" game... YOU WIN!
Which Hitler backpedaled on when he came to power.
Does it matter? He roses to power preaching socialism and workers rights, therefore his base of support consisted of people that wanted socialism and workers rights. Those are the people that became concentration camp guards and worked in his war factories. Hitler drove the message all the way from the left, through the extreme left, and settling on the extreme right. The socialist workers right people because the extreme right, not like the narrative you fucks have been spinning where people like Dave Rubin are "extreme right."
..and today the left is attacking Trump from the right with their McCarthyism and their pro-war pro-bombing position on the middle east
I'm talking about what actually happened in Germany, facts in evidence due to the films of over a decade of Hitlers speeches. What are you talking about?