"Dude, I heard that... fricken loud man! I heard it all the way across the universe where I'm creating a planet consisting only of a beer volcano and a stripper factory... check it out".
Yeah, it would be just like God to put that all the way across the universe, so we can't possibly get to it. Couldn't have put it out past Mars or around Alpha Centuri or something...
A false negative will be almost as bad as a false positive.
True, but... Since you don't have several hundred ballistic missiles being fired at each airport, every single day, which senario do you think is more likely, and more of a cause for concern?
Intel's Core 2 trumps AMD's top of the line chip according to objective benchmarks.
Didn't bother to read the NEXT SENTENCE?
About Core 2 I said: Yes, Intel is a master of vaporware, hype, and paper releases.
Until Core 2 is released, it's just another in a long line of Intel's marketing bullshit. MAYBE they'll introduce them at ridiculously high prices, and only in the distant future. It didn't work so well for the P4 Extreme Edition, but it worked for Itanium... killing off numerous companies on hype alone.
Certainly, there are cases where you can make more profit for something lower-tech, less expensive, whatever. It's not an inherent rule of capitolism that it can't be done.
I wonder why these numbers are so greatly exaggerated.
I wonder how you know these numbers are exaggerated.
Anyway, once we actually reach data storage of that magnitude on a disk, we'll have to face the problem of seek time and transfers.
That's not a huge hurdle. I can easily envision a drive with more than a dozen fully-independant laser assemblies. Not only do you get 12X+ throughput, but you can get seek times ~12X faster/smaller. And if you get desperate for performance, you can spin that platter of laser assemblies at 40X in the opposite direction the disc is spinning.
Plus increased data density on physical media means you'll see proportional increases in throughput.
Scientists should spend more time on figuring out how to leave the world of milliseconds and approach the nanoseconds.
Scientists should spend more time finding a cure for cancer, and not bother with all this fancy digital crap. Right?
What you want, is not what most people want. Video playback/encoding won't go any faster no matter how low you get the seek times, but having far smaller space to store it would be a huge problem/limitation.
If you need ridiculous seek times, grab more DDR RAM, store this data on a $130 4GB Flash card, get a high-end controller that can accept massive ammounts of battery-backed drive cache, etc.
Sydney, Jul 8 (ANI): An Indian born scientist in the US is working on
Does anyone else find it ironic that/. (which is a US-based site--with readers from around the world) posts a link to an article from an Australia news site, talking about developments of an Indian-born scientist, working in the US?
wouldn't a player that combined the capabilities of the two be even more expensive?
No. The expensive part isn't the lense.
The expensive part is the CPU fast enough to decode HDTV in h.264 in realtime. The expensive part is the HDMI video chip and output. The expensive part is licensing the codecs in the first place. Having only one set of those, while playing two types of discs, would make it far CHEAPER.
This will be slightly more expensive than a single Blu-ray player, if the two camps actually ALLOW that to happen.
Yes, occasionally it did take a call to a rebate center, and OfficeMaAx dealt with some really bad "services",
There's your problem... People are certainly NOT willing to do that, nor should they have to.
The rebates are vanishing, but the good deals are not being replaced by true deals in the form of low prices. Same for Best Buy. They have almost completely dropped rebates, and I have not found one thing to buy there
Quite the opposite. I HAVE seen really good deals. Packs of CD-Rs which used-to be $25 (occasionally with a $25 mail-in rebate) are now $7 ALL THE TIME. Perhaps mail-in rebates aren't the only cause of that, but the deals are there, they just aren't the pants-wetting FREE! FREE!!! FREE!!! offers.
And besides that, you do simply need to wait a while for systems to switch over. They're probably working on switching now, so they'll be ready for Back to School sales, and eventually the huge After-Thanksgiving and pre-Christmas mass sales.
Perhaps the lack of discounts you're seeing just HAPPENS to coincide with the end of the holidays, and year-end unloading of wherehouses for tax purposes.
I rather suspect that what you mean is "I was too lazy to send in the rebate or just passedup the deal because I didn't want to deal with it, so now I'm glad that no one else is getting the deal either".
You're obviously not familiar with the Prisioners Dilemma.
Sure, by exploiting other people (who pay the higher price, unwilling to hassle with the rebate) you can save some more money. However, your savings WERE at the expense of other customers. If I walk into a store, and want to buy some DVD-Rs, I don't want to pay $20 with a $15 mail-in rebate, I'd much rather pay $15 or so, ALL THE TIME, and not get ripped off, or hassled. It works out better for everyone that way.
Yes, it's quite surprising that Intel is a generation ahead, and still only matching AMD's (older) line of chips.
The Core 2 has been trouncing AMD's top-end chips in the benchmarks.
Yes, Intel is a master of vaporware, hype, and paper releases. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are falling for it... The same kinds of people that fell for the "P4 Extreme Edition".
Why exactly would a 64 bit cpu with the same or similar clock be faster than a 32 bit cpu? because it has 32 more?
Because "Bit-ness" doesn't exist in a vacuum. The switch from x86 to x86-64 also added lots of extra registers, instructions, etc., which do make for a significant performance improvement.
WTF are you guys running that needs all that much speed?
Ever tried to playback H.264 video at HDTV resolutions? It's ridiculously CPU-intensive.
Have you done much (any kind) video encoding?
How about copying files over the network with encryption at line-speeds?
How about using xMAME with fairly recent games? Or any other type of emulation/virtualization?
Have you ever needed to bzip2 (or 7zip/lzma) very large files?
Most of that is fine on a slower system... unless you do any of it commonly. Once you're waiting hours every few days, it's time to invest in a faster system. If you're not, be happy you don't have to worry about it.
Ever since Pentium-M (not P4-M), AMD hasn't been able to match Intel on power/heat for laptop processors.
Completely untrue. Turions are rated just a watt or two higher than Core CPUs at similar performance levels. Even the old 32-bit mobile Athlons were getting to be very low power, before the switch to Opteron.
Current Turions are just binned Athlon 64s that can run at lower voltages. They don't have an actual laptop design, unlike Intel.
Basically true, but completely inconsequential. Intel has chosen to develop largely independent CPU cores for their different branches (although that is changing with the Pentium 4 EOL), while AMD has chosen to base their mobile, desktop, and server chips off of approximately the same core. Neither strategy is inherently any better than the other. And, since AMD has been able to match Intel in power and performance, it seems their method works just as well.
A 10 w cpu is not a hardly noticable improvement over a 95 wat proc in a laptop.
Congratulations on your complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
As I already said: "most mobile CPUs [are] below 35watts now," That means you can't possibly save the theoretical 85W by switching to a lower-power CPU... unless you have a CPU that GENERATES ELECTRICITY and gets COOLER as it operates!
Yes, most cpus run at a lower wattage, when they are clock throttling. But if their continuous full clock power were 10 W...
No, 35W is the TDP for Intel/AMD's latest (powerful) mobile CPUs, meaning they will average far, far less, particularly when idle.
Anyone who says the cpu industry is about to implode is an idiot.
I wasn't defending him, or anyone else. Nor do I believe the CPU industry will implode. I was just addressing incorrect facts and assertions, like the ones you're now making.
Yes, I am a computer designer - engineer, and I work at Dell.
I'm sure if you could have a 10W Opteron running as fast as a 95W one you'd be interested in making the switch.
Not too likely, actually. You'll save a few cents each month on your electric bill, and the fans will be somewhat quieter. Few people would want to spend more money for no performance improvement, and a hardly noticable savings in power.
In portables the benefits would be more significant, but with most mobile CPUs below 35watts now, you won't be saving that much power. A lower-power LCD backlight would probably be a bigger energy saver.
For a long time I would only buy AMD, but with a Mac I don't really have a choice. But after hearing how quiet this thing is, and seeing how it flies, I'm happy it has a Core Duo in it.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Intel CPUs won't... you know... WORK.
The only thing you've really said is that Core Duo CPUs are not Pentium 4s.
Who cares whether it is top-of-the-range or next best, as long as it is good enough for what you need?
For one reason... While I rarely upgrade CPU or Mobo without the other, I do often use RAM across generations of PCs. The system I'm using right now has 1GB of PC-133 RAM, removed from several other systems. PC-133 obviously doesn't have any future, and when it comes time to spend $100 on new sticks of RAM, I'd like to get something that will be useful (in less-performance-sensative systems) for years to come.
It looks now like DDR is nearing the end of it's life, while DDR2 is coming onto the scene. Unfortunately the less expensive systems are still DDR. So should I buy a cheap system now, and get stuck with a dead-end investment in large quantities of RAM (and possibly a CPU/mobo)? Or should I wait a while as AM2 prices drop, and then purchase lots of RAM I'll be sure to find reusable for several years to come?
Unless you NEED a new system immediately, it would certainly be prudent to wait and see how things develop for a while longer. I wish I had been as cautious back when Slot (1, A) CPUs were all the rage.
Just get a computer that fulfills your needs now. If in 2 years time that PC is no longer good enough for you, then get it upgraded.
A very short-sighted view of the world. You should put a little bit of effort into making sure your system will be useful more than 2 years into the future. Even if it won't be useful to you, being compatible with common parts would make it more likely to be useful to whomever you give it to.
The T2400 is not a 64-bit chip, so comparing it with an AMD 64-bit chip is useless.
AMD64 chips run 32-bit code just fine. The point is that T2400 is a new chip, and the only new chips AMD makes happen to be 64-bit. So you're disadvantaging AMD in your comparison, just because Intel is dragging it's feet on 64-bit support.
And since I'm not made of money, I can only compare what I've got.
You can compare all you want, but you can't draw any useful conclusions with such varied systems. I could compare my Intel 386/33MHz laptop with a modern 2GHz AMD Turion notebook, but what could that possibly tell me?
Also, since neither chipmaker has had any real innovation for a while, the only thing they can do is put more CPU's on one die.
That is absolutely moronic. There have been significant changes to both companies' products in that time.
If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's a fair comparison to me.
You can say so, but you can't rationally justify such a stance.
the T2400 is about 5% faster. However, it runs MUCH cooler than the XP-M, and therefore the fan doesn't run as fast and so is quieter.
What a terrible comparison to make. Your benchmarking an old generation of AMD's chips (non-Opteron/non-AMD64) to the latest of Intel's chips.
And even with that, it's highly subjective, since AMD had a wide range of mobile processors, some of which were just as low power as the best (common) Intel chips, and still rather fast.
I know you're not really trying to say Intel chips are better, but still... What a terrible comparison.
we introduced multitasking operating systems that "virtualised" memory, IO, and peripherals to multiple processes. Now computers are getting powerful enough to usefully run more than one OS at a time,
How are those two even remotely the same? Running two apps on the same system was a very simple and obvious step. Running two OSes has significant disadvantages, and very, very few benefits and reasons to do so.
I don't believe most people are going to have their own cluster of systems in the near future, nor are they likely to want to license Windows to run those apps and games at half-speed. Why else would virtualization be needed outside of a server farm? The uptime of modern operating systems is extremely high, and reboots are necessitated by hardware issues these days (like your DVD-burner which won't stop trying to burn your cracked DVD-R), which virtualization won't help, and may worsen the problem.
I'm sure new concepts will come along to occupy idle CPU cycles, but virtualization isn't it. That will stay in the server room.
Now, what I'd like to know is: how do you rip the soundtrack off those uber-protected DVD?
Tell your HD-DVD software you've got a digital reciever that supports AC3/DTS/etc... Hook your soundcard's "digital audio out" to "digital audio in", and start recording the bits. You've got a bit-exact multichannel copy of the soundtrack in AC3/DTS/etc.
It's even easier if you want a high-bitrate lossless audio track, as then you can copy the decoded LPCM stream, and re-encode with the codec, and still not lose anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it would be just like God to put that all the way across the universe, so we can't possibly get to it. Couldn't have put it out past Mars or around Alpha Centuri or something...
True, but... Since you don't have several hundred ballistic missiles being fired at each airport, every single day, which senario do you think is more likely, and more of a cause for concern?
If you only attempt to protect yourself against methods of PREVIOUS attacks, you will be forever vulnerable.
Didn't bother to read the NEXT SENTENCE?
About Core 2 I said: Yes, Intel is a master of vaporware, hype, and paper releases.
Until Core 2 is released, it's just another in a long line of Intel's marketing bullshit. MAYBE they'll introduce them at ridiculously high prices, and only in the distant future. It didn't work so well for the P4 Extreme Edition, but it worked for Itanium... killing off numerous companies on hype alone.
Wow! You managed to read things into my post I couldn't even have IMAGINED.
It's not an equivalent, it's just an analogy.
Certainly, there are cases where you can make more profit for something lower-tech, less expensive, whatever. It's not an inherent rule of capitolism that it can't be done.
You should tell that to DeBeers, who's entire business model is artificial scarcity of a dirt-cheap mineral.
You can, in-fact, make money by supressing a lower-margin product than your own. It doesn't always work that way, but it's certainly not impossible.
I wonder how you know these numbers are exaggerated.
That's not a huge hurdle. I can easily envision a drive with more than a dozen fully-independant laser assemblies. Not only do you get 12X+ throughput, but you can get seek times ~12X faster/smaller. And if you get desperate for performance, you can spin that platter of laser assemblies at 40X in the opposite direction the disc is spinning.
Plus increased data density on physical media means you'll see proportional increases in throughput.
Scientists should spend more time finding a cure for cancer, and not bother with all this fancy digital crap. Right?
What you want, is not what most people want. Video playback/encoding won't go any faster no matter how low you get the seek times, but having far smaller space to store it would be a huge problem/limitation.
If you need ridiculous seek times, grab more DDR RAM, store this data on a $130 4GB Flash card, get a high-end controller that can accept massive ammounts of battery-backed drive cache, etc.
Does anyone else find it ironic that
No. The expensive part isn't the lense.
The expensive part is the CPU fast enough to decode HDTV in h.264 in realtime. The expensive part is the HDMI video chip and output. The expensive part is licensing the codecs in the first place. Having only one set of those, while playing two types of discs, would make it far CHEAPER.
This will be slightly more expensive than a single Blu-ray player, if the two camps actually ALLOW that to happen.
There's your problem... People are certainly NOT willing to do that, nor should they have to.
Quite the opposite. I HAVE seen really good deals. Packs of CD-Rs which used-to be $25 (occasionally with a $25 mail-in rebate) are now $7 ALL THE TIME. Perhaps mail-in rebates aren't the only cause of that, but the deals are there, they just aren't the pants-wetting FREE! FREE!!! FREE!!! offers.
And besides that, you do simply need to wait a while for systems to switch over. They're probably working on switching now, so they'll be ready for Back to School sales, and eventually the huge After-Thanksgiving and pre-Christmas mass sales.
Perhaps the lack of discounts you're seeing just HAPPENS to coincide with the end of the holidays, and year-end unloading of wherehouses for tax purposes.
You're obviously not familiar with the Prisioners Dilemma.
Sure, by exploiting other people (who pay the higher price, unwilling to hassle with the rebate) you can save some more money. However, your savings WERE at the expense of other customers. If I walk into a store, and want to buy some DVD-Rs, I don't want to pay $20 with a $15 mail-in rebate, I'd much rather pay $15 or so, ALL THE TIME, and not get ripped off, or hassled. It works out better for everyone that way.
You have to preceed a sentence like this with information that supports it. You can just say so.
You've described the history of the system, but you've given NO information at all as to WHY you think that would be superior.
Do you like the color scheme better, or what?
Yes, it's quite surprising that Intel is a generation ahead, and still only matching AMD's (older) line of chips.
Yes, Intel is a master of vaporware, hype, and paper releases. I wouldn't be surprised if some people are falling for it... The same kinds of people that fell for the "P4 Extreme Edition".
Because "Bit-ness" doesn't exist in a vacuum. The switch from x86 to x86-64 also added lots of extra registers, instructions, etc., which do make for a significant performance improvement.
Ever tried to playback H.264 video at HDTV resolutions? It's ridiculously CPU-intensive.
Have you done much (any kind) video encoding?
How about copying files over the network with encryption at line-speeds?
How about using xMAME with fairly recent games?
Or any other type of emulation/virtualization?
Have you ever needed to bzip2 (or 7zip/lzma) very large files?
Most of that is fine on a slower system... unless you do any of it commonly. Once you're waiting hours every few days, it's time to invest in a faster system. If you're not, be happy you don't have to worry about it.
Completely untrue. Turions are rated just a watt or two higher than Core CPUs at similar performance levels. Even the old 32-bit mobile Athlons were getting to be very low power, before the switch to Opteron.
Basically true, but completely inconsequential. Intel has chosen to develop largely independent CPU cores for their different branches (although that is changing with the Pentium 4 EOL), while AMD has chosen to base their mobile, desktop, and server chips off of approximately the same core. Neither strategy is inherently any better than the other. And, since AMD has been able to match Intel in power and performance, it seems their method works just as well.
Congratulations on your complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
As I already said: "most mobile CPUs [are] below 35watts now,"
That means you can't possibly save the theoretical 85W by switching to a lower-power CPU... unless you have a CPU that GENERATES ELECTRICITY and gets COOLER as it operates!
No, 35W is the TDP for Intel/AMD's latest (powerful) mobile CPUs, meaning they will average far, far less, particularly when idle.
I wasn't defending him, or anyone else. Nor do I believe the CPU industry will implode. I was just addressing incorrect facts and assertions, like the ones you're now making.
That's very, very depressing.
Not too likely, actually. You'll save a few cents each month on your electric bill, and the fans will be somewhat quieter. Few people would want to spend more money for no performance improvement, and a hardly noticable savings in power.
In portables the benefits would be more significant, but with most mobile CPUs below 35watts now, you won't be saving that much power. A lower-power LCD backlight would probably be a bigger energy saver.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Intel CPUs won't... you know... WORK.
The only thing you've really said is that Core Duo CPUs are not Pentium 4s.
For one reason...
While I rarely upgrade CPU or Mobo without the other, I do often use RAM across generations of PCs. The system I'm using right now has 1GB of PC-133 RAM, removed from several other systems. PC-133 obviously doesn't have any future, and when it comes time to spend $100 on new sticks of RAM, I'd like to get something that will be useful (in less-performance-sensative systems) for years to come.
It looks now like DDR is nearing the end of it's life, while DDR2 is coming onto the scene. Unfortunately the less expensive systems are still DDR. So should I buy a cheap system now, and get stuck with a dead-end investment in large quantities of RAM (and possibly a CPU/mobo)? Or should I wait a while as AM2 prices drop, and then purchase lots of RAM I'll be sure to find reusable for several years to come?
Unless you NEED a new system immediately, it would certainly be prudent to wait and see how things develop for a while longer. I wish I had been as cautious back when Slot (1, A) CPUs were all the rage.
A very short-sighted view of the world. You should put a little bit of effort into making sure your system will be useful more than 2 years into the future. Even if it won't be useful to you, being compatible with common parts would make it more likely to be useful to whomever you give it to.
Yes it is... That's why I said so, repeatedly.
AMD64 chips run 32-bit code just fine. The point is that T2400 is a new chip, and the only new chips AMD makes happen to be 64-bit. So you're disadvantaging AMD in your comparison, just because Intel is dragging it's feet on 64-bit support.
You can compare all you want, but you can't draw any useful conclusions with such varied systems. I could compare my Intel 386/33MHz laptop with a modern 2GHz AMD Turion notebook, but what could that possibly tell me?
That is absolutely moronic. There have been significant changes to both companies' products in that time.
You can say so, but you can't rationally justify such a stance.
What a terrible comparison to make. Your benchmarking an old generation of AMD's chips (non-Opteron/non-AMD64) to the latest of Intel's chips.
And even with that, it's highly subjective, since AMD had a wide range of mobile processors, some of which were just as low power as the best (common) Intel chips, and still rather fast.
I know you're not really trying to say Intel chips are better, but still... What a terrible comparison.
How are those two even remotely the same? Running two apps on the same system was a very simple and obvious step. Running two OSes has significant disadvantages, and very, very few benefits and reasons to do so.
I don't believe most people are going to have their own cluster of systems in the near future, nor are they likely to want to license Windows to run those apps and games at half-speed. Why else would virtualization be needed outside of a server farm? The uptime of modern operating systems is extremely high, and reboots are necessitated by hardware issues these days (like your DVD-burner which won't stop trying to burn your cracked DVD-R), which virtualization won't help, and may worsen the problem.
I'm sure new concepts will come along to occupy idle CPU cycles, but virtualization isn't it. That will stay in the server room.
The problem is, you're comparing running your own server, with hosting. The virtualization, in this case, is only incidental and inconsequential.
Tell your HD-DVD software you've got a digital reciever that supports AC3/DTS/etc... Hook your soundcard's "digital audio out" to "digital audio in", and start recording the bits. You've got a bit-exact multichannel copy of the soundtrack in AC3/DTS/etc.
It's even easier if you want a high-bitrate lossless audio track, as then you can copy the decoded LPCM stream, and re-encode with the codec, and still not lose anything.