There is an illusion today among younger people...
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There is an illusion today among younger people that somehow our world isn't full of evil people, that another Hitler or Stalin won't emerge, that world peace is at hand and that only small regional conflicts far away will happen in the future.
WWI was supposed to be "the war to end all wars", and it was horribly out done by WWII just 20 years later. We've had, more or less, 70 years of world peace since then, depending on how you look at it (there were a whole lot of regional wars during that time).
I don't like nuclear weapons, I hate them, they are horrible things that I wish had no use. But if wishes were fishes we'd all eat for free, and wishing for them to all go away misses the point. If just one evil power has them, then we all need them, or rather, a few reasonable and responsible powers need them.
Oh sure, the total number might go down, we might get down to 1,000 each for Russia and the US, maybe 300 for UK and France, etc. But we just aren't going to zero. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't invent it.
the FX8350s trading blows with i7s (despite those being nearly 2 and a half times more expensive)
You show your bias...
The i7 is not 2.5 times more expensive, it isn't even 2 times more expensive.
The FX8350 is $175 at NewEgg right now, the i7 Haswell refresh is $309... but the reality is that the i5 beats the FX8350 in most cases, the hyperthreading of the i7 is simply not required.
The i5 is $185, or only $10 more than the FX, it consumes half the power and is faster in single threaded and dual threaded applications. Only in applications that can use 8 cores does the AMD have any chance.
So you're an AMD fanboy, and that's ok, AMD needs a few of those these days...
That's what you get for buying cheap crap. In that same era, the first time I rebooted my Sun was for a CPU upgrade... but it cost at least 5x as much as a Windows PC.
No, that is what you get for running a crappy OS...:)
A modern $400 Dell machine will run 24/7 for almost ever now... rebooting only for Windows Updates...
If Intel had any real competition, we'd be seeing an 8 core Skylake for $250 minus the IGP.
It would fit in about the same number of transistors as what we are getting, but Intel has no need to provide it and cut into Xeon sales because AMD's 8 core chip is not competitive.
In fact, AMD's 8 core chip is slower than Intel's 4 core chip in most tasks... that right there is the problem...
I was simply point out that the 25% jump in performance over Sandy Bridge is only really going to matter to people who use the computer for that type of work. If it is a hobby, then your time isn't worth money.:)
I do things like this for a hobby
Fair enough... But if you're doing it for a hobby, are you going to spend $800 to upgrade from Sandy Bridge to Skylake for a 25% boost to performance?
As for the link, keep in mind, that's the energy just for a single still image. Multiply for every frame in an animation as necessary, and you can see where the savings pile up.
Sure, except what do those savings translate into? $5 a year, $5 a month, or $5 a day?
I'm all for saving power, it does cost money after all, but how much are we talking about in terms of money?
If you do this as a hobby, then speed may not be that big of a concern anyway, just run jobs overnight. The power bill might add up, which is why I asked what that translated to in dollars over time.
Besides, the 8+ core Xeons tend to sacrifice clockspeed instead, making them less useful for when you need the single-threaded performance for some tasks.
While that is true, they make up for it in spades in performance. A nice dual core Xeon server with a pair of 18 core CPUs for a total of 72 threads running at 2.5 GHz will completely and totally crush anything you could dream of for Skylake. It'll also be rather expensive, at about $15k just for the CPUs, but considering a good employee doing that kind of work costs 5 times that, it is cheap as chips by comparison.
---
I suppose my point is that for the vast majority of people, Skylake is not worth upgrading to unless you're still on Core2, and even then for many people those work fine.
Reading AnandTech's review, they make a bold statement at the end:
"Sandy Bridge, Your Time Is Up."
That is an interesting thought, but is it really?
If you need USB 3, if you want some of the other newer chipset features, perhaps. But for performance?
In benchmarks, Skylake appears to be about 25% faster than Sandy Bridge. Sure, if you're doing video encoding all day or other CPU intensive applications, it is... (and if you ARE doing that stuff, why aren't you on Xeon?)
But for most desktop computer uses, you likely won't see any difference between the two. What is worse, is that most of the above gains came from Haswell, not Skylake.
Look at the "Gains over Sandy Bridge" chart on that page. Look at the red lines, then the purple lines. The red lines are the Haswell gain over Sandy Bridge, then the purple lines are the Skylake gains over Sandy Bridge.
Thanks for sharing... Always interesting to see things put another way...
I don't doubt that the performance per watt is improving, that is one of Intel's main focus points over the past few years.
It would be interesting to put that difference in power into a dollar figure, because while it saves power, how much does the upgrade from i7 Sandy Bridge to i7 Skylake cost in terms of dollars (and downtime and labor which aren't free for anyone doing actual work)
-----------
However, the above point aside...
If you're doing THAT kind of work, you shouldn't be on any of them, that is what Xeon is for!:)
If you either make a living (or work for a company that does) doing image editing, render work, etc. you should be on a 8+ core Xeon. The cost of the computer is trivial compared to the cost of the employee's time.
Defend away... you've shown your true colors as one of THOSE players...:)
In any case, there is clearly a market for people like you, EVE Online exists and that is fine. You should have a game to keep you happy, I actually don't have a problem with it.
This is why I don't play EVE, I don't want to take part in that nonsense. If you enjoy it, then carry on.
One of the things you have to do to make a game "good" is manage difficulty. It should be possible for the player to win; depending on the difficult level, perhaps even "easy". But a challenge should be available to the player who is looking for it.
I agree... however, I would toss out that the average gamer in 2015 is not the same as the average gamer of 1985...
There is a reason it was called Nintendo Hard... I remember those days and don't miss them one bit...
A lot of gamers today are really looking for a fun interactive story experience without too much trouble. They want it to "feel" hard without actually "being" hard.
Not all of course, some people do want a real challenge, I totally support difficulty settings so people can have the insane mode if they want it.
I don't mind dying in PvP warzones in SWTOR, that is what is supposed to happen, but there is no cost to such death.
Likewise in Quake, there is no cost to death, you just respawn and get back to it.
In EVE, trolls can cost you time and money, they can chase you around and smash your stuff. There is really no safe place, even hi-sec isn't totally safe, people do sucide gank there.
If you're on Sandy Bridge or newer, don't bother unless you really need the new chipset features.
Benchmarks of course show a small gain, but in the real world I suspect you could do a blind test of Sandy Bridge next to Skylake and you couldn't tell the difference.
Anyone who needs the performance difference shouldn't be on either chip, if you do serious image/video editing, you should be on Xeon anyway with 8+ cores if you make a living doing such work. The cost of such a system is trivial compared to the cost of the employee doing such things.
I have several systems in my office, ranging from a single Q6600 machine and two Core i7-920 machines all the way up to a Haswell Refresh i7-4790k. The difference in general Windows performance between all those machines is minor. Games play, more or less, the same in anything Sandy Bridge or newer, and we don't do anything so intensive to require more power.
Come on AMD, get back in the game so Intel has some real competition. Since Core2Duo came out, you haven't been coming to the party.
Got it, so you're one of the trolls who likes to gank other players and be a total dillweed in a game because you can't suffer any real conquenses for it.
Not sure everyone in EVE is bad, but they are there and they can troll the crap out of you if you want and there isn't anything you can really do about it.
As you say, you can't kill people, as such, they are free to be jerks and trolls. If they could die and death meant the loss of their account, they might change their behavior.
Those bounties would mean something if they were permanent.
If you faced permanent death from your stupid behavior, you may be more inclined to be nicer.
Not everyone of course, after all, you did still have to deal with it in the real world, but you always did have that as a solution.
EVE just supports people who like to be trolls from the safety of their homes and computers, which is fine I suppose. It is the same type of people who troll forums behind fake names.
If you really want to show your stuff, dominate in the real world where you have to actually get along with people in civilization and not be a dick.
Of course they do, but their ability to troll is more limited.
I play SWTOR, on a non-PvP server. Outside of very limited areas, you can't do anything to me. You can't damage my stuff, there are no repair bills for PvP, you can't enter my stronghold without permission, I can put you on ignore and we won't play together.
EVE doesn't have that ability, it only takes a few jerks to spoil the game. You're defending it, perhaps you're one of them? Such a game is naturally going to attract such players of course.
There is little demand for uranium, so the supply isn't growing much, that can be solved.
The cost of the fuel is trivial compared to the cost of building the plant.
Wind and solar currently get subsidies, take those away, tax carbon, and nuclear will make sense again, if of course you don't keep blocking it at every turn.
EVE tends to do better here because the game allows for practically all player assets to be destroyed and leave the economy
Yes, but what is broken about EVE is that while you can smash a player's stuff, that player can't actually get revenge.
Oh sure, they can build back up and smash your stuff, but lets be honest, that isn't likely to happen.
What is more likely to happen is the person who lost everything has nothing to live for and decides to kill the player who hurt them.
In the real world, if you actual treat people the way people do in EVE, sooner or later, someone will do something about it, and it won't be to smash your stuff, but rather you.
Frankly, I think it is only a matter of time before someone playing the game gets hurt bad enough to track down a player in real life and kill them.
EVE is overrated - it's just a libertarian fantasy-land without any of the truly damaging human consequences.
Yes, EVE's problem is that it allows player 1 to be a complete dick about things, screw you over, and totally get away with it.
There is no real justice, it is like the wild west, but without the ability to hunt that player down and kill them.
If you behave in the real world the way players behave in EVE, you wouldn't live very long. Sooner or later, someone would simply shoot you and be done with it.
Yet the price of what those stations produced didnt reflect the prices of the raw materials needed, and stations making what should be large profits just swallow the money into oblivion, and when stations should be out of money they magically have an endless supply anyways.
Yes, but I suspect that if you could actually do all that and make it real, then it wouldn't be any fun.
The whole idea of a game is to win, to come out on top. There has to be a way to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an illusion today among younger people that somehow our world isn't full of evil people, that another Hitler or Stalin won't emerge, that world peace is at hand and that only small regional conflicts far away will happen in the future.
WWI was supposed to be "the war to end all wars", and it was horribly out done by WWII just 20 years later. We've had, more or less, 70 years of world peace since then, depending on how you look at it (there were a whole lot of regional wars during that time).
I don't like nuclear weapons, I hate them, they are horrible things that I wish had no use. But if wishes were fishes we'd all eat for free, and wishing for them to all go away misses the point. If just one evil power has them, then we all need them, or rather, a few reasonable and responsible powers need them.
Oh sure, the total number might go down, we might get down to 1,000 each for Russia and the US, maybe 300 for UK and France, etc. But we just aren't going to zero. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't invent it.
the FX8350s trading blows with i7s (despite those being nearly 2 and a half times more expensive)
You show your bias...
The i7 is not 2.5 times more expensive, it isn't even 2 times more expensive.
The FX8350 is $175 at NewEgg right now, the i7 Haswell refresh is $309... but the reality is that the i5 beats the FX8350 in most cases, the hyperthreading of the i7 is simply not required.
The i5 is $185, or only $10 more than the FX, it consumes half the power and is faster in single threaded and dual threaded applications. Only in applications that can use 8 cores does the AMD have any chance.
So you're an AMD fanboy, and that's ok, AMD needs a few of those these days...
That's what you get for buying cheap crap. In that same era, the first time I rebooted my Sun was for a CPU upgrade... but it cost at least 5x as much as a Windows PC.
No, that is what you get for running a crappy OS... :)
A modern $400 Dell machine will run 24/7 for almost ever now... rebooting only for Windows Updates...
That is a nice change... :)
If Intel had any real competition, we'd be seeing an 8 core Skylake for $250 minus the IGP.
It would fit in about the same number of transistors as what we are getting, but Intel has no need to provide it and cut into Xeon sales because AMD's 8 core chip is not competitive.
In fact, AMD's 8 core chip is slower than Intel's 4 core chip in most tasks... that right there is the problem...
Very, very small...
Fair enough... But since I can't recompile most programs, I have to take what exists...
Many games simply run faster on Intel. Regardless of the reason, they just do...
If AMD has a case, they should file a complaint with the proper government dept, but it is beyond my ability to do anything about it...
Then there is power consumption, AMD uses more power per unit of performance, makes more heat, so that is something as well...
Fair enough, that is a point of view that I don't personally share, but can respect.
When I play games, I personally prefer them to be easy. I work hard in real life and I do want my games to be "its just a game".
But that's me. So to each their own.
Yeah, I would love to see a real high end enthusiast processor with 8 cores, hyperthreading, a 4+ GHz clock speed, and no integrated graphics./quote.
So would I... but they aren't doing that to avoid hurting Xeon sales...
And in fairness, they DO have such a CPU... It is the Haswell-E line of chips, but it'll cost you a thousand bucks...
Who says it's only about work?
I was simply point out that the 25% jump in performance over Sandy Bridge is only really going to matter to people who use the computer for that type of work. If it is a hobby, then your time isn't worth money. :)
I do things like this for a hobby
Fair enough... But if you're doing it for a hobby, are you going to spend $800 to upgrade from Sandy Bridge to Skylake for a 25% boost to performance?
As for the link, keep in mind, that's the energy just for a single still image. Multiply for every frame in an animation as necessary, and you can see where the savings pile up.
Sure, except what do those savings translate into? $5 a year, $5 a month, or $5 a day?
I'm all for saving power, it does cost money after all, but how much are we talking about in terms of money?
If you do this as a hobby, then speed may not be that big of a concern anyway, just run jobs overnight. The power bill might add up, which is why I asked what that translated to in dollars over time.
Besides, the 8+ core Xeons tend to sacrifice clockspeed instead, making them less useful for when you need the single-threaded performance for some tasks.
While that is true, they make up for it in spades in performance. A nice dual core Xeon server with a pair of 18 core CPUs for a total of 72 threads running at 2.5 GHz will completely and totally crush anything you could dream of for Skylake. It'll also be rather expensive, at about $15k just for the CPUs, but considering a good employee doing that kind of work costs 5 times that, it is cheap as chips by comparison.
---
I suppose my point is that for the vast majority of people, Skylake is not worth upgrading to unless you're still on Core2, and even then for many people those work fine.
You might be one of the exceptions. :)
Reading AnandTech's review, they make a bold statement at the end:
"Sandy Bridge, Your Time Is Up."
That is an interesting thought, but is it really?
If you need USB 3, if you want some of the other newer chipset features, perhaps. But for performance?
In benchmarks, Skylake appears to be about 25% faster than Sandy Bridge. Sure, if you're doing video encoding all day or other CPU intensive applications, it is... (and if you ARE doing that stuff, why aren't you on Xeon?)
But for most desktop computer uses, you likely won't see any difference between the two. What is worse, is that most of the above gains came from Haswell, not Skylake.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
Look at the "Gains over Sandy Bridge" chart on that page. Look at the red lines, then the purple lines. The red lines are the Haswell gain over Sandy Bridge, then the purple lines are the Skylake gains over Sandy Bridge.
Thanks for sharing... Always interesting to see things put another way...
I don't doubt that the performance per watt is improving, that is one of Intel's main focus points over the past few years.
It would be interesting to put that difference in power into a dollar figure, because while it saves power, how much does the upgrade from i7 Sandy Bridge to i7 Skylake cost in terms of dollars (and downtime and labor which aren't free for anyone doing actual work)
-----------
However, the above point aside...
If you're doing THAT kind of work, you shouldn't be on any of them, that is what Xeon is for! :)
If you either make a living (or work for a company that does) doing image editing, render work, etc. you should be on a 8+ core Xeon. The cost of the computer is trivial compared to the cost of the employee's time.
Defend away... you've shown your true colors as one of THOSE players... :)
In any case, there is clearly a market for people like you, EVE Online exists and that is fine. You should have a game to keep you happy, I actually don't have a problem with it.
This is why I don't play EVE, I don't want to take part in that nonsense. If you enjoy it, then carry on.
One of the things you have to do to make a game "good" is manage difficulty. It should be possible for the player to win; depending on the difficult level, perhaps even "easy". But a challenge should be available to the player who is looking for it.
I agree... however, I would toss out that the average gamer in 2015 is not the same as the average gamer of 1985...
There is a reason it was called Nintendo Hard... I remember those days and don't miss them one bit...
A lot of gamers today are really looking for a fun interactive story experience without too much trouble. They want it to "feel" hard without actually "being" hard.
Not all of course, some people do want a real challenge, I totally support difficulty settings so people can have the insane mode if they want it.
I don't mind dying in PvP warzones in SWTOR, that is what is supposed to happen, but there is no cost to such death.
Likewise in Quake, there is no cost to death, you just respawn and get back to it.
In EVE, trolls can cost you time and money, they can chase you around and smash your stuff. There is really no safe place, even hi-sec isn't totally safe, people do sucide gank there.
If you're on Sandy Bridge or newer, don't bother unless you really need the new chipset features.
Benchmarks of course show a small gain, but in the real world I suspect you could do a blind test of Sandy Bridge next to Skylake and you couldn't tell the difference.
Anyone who needs the performance difference shouldn't be on either chip, if you do serious image/video editing, you should be on Xeon anyway with 8+ cores if you make a living doing such work. The cost of such a system is trivial compared to the cost of the employee doing such things.
I have several systems in my office, ranging from a single Q6600 machine and two Core i7-920 machines all the way up to a Haswell Refresh i7-4790k. The difference in general Windows performance between all those machines is minor. Games play, more or less, the same in anything Sandy Bridge or newer, and we don't do anything so intensive to require more power.
Come on AMD, get back in the game so Intel has some real competition. Since Core2Duo came out, you haven't been coming to the party.
I still have two Core i7-920 systems running as well and I won't replace them with this either.
But I'm not going AMD, too much power use. Over a five year lifespan, the difference in power use and AC to cool the rooms adds up.
Are you kidding? As an owner of several Sandy Bridge systems there is no reason to upgrade.
Heck. I still have two Core i7-920 systems at work and I'm not touching them, they work just fine running Windows 10.
Intel hasn't had competition from AMD in years and this is the result.
Got it, so you're one of the trolls who likes to gank other players and be a total dillweed in a game because you can't suffer any real conquenses for it.
Good to know...
Not sure everyone in EVE is bad, but they are there and they can troll the crap out of you if you want and there isn't anything you can really do about it.
As you say, you can't kill people, as such, they are free to be jerks and trolls. If they could die and death meant the loss of their account, they might change their behavior.
Those bounties would mean something if they were permanent.
If you faced permanent death from your stupid behavior, you may be more inclined to be nicer.
Not everyone of course, after all, you did still have to deal with it in the real world, but you always did have that as a solution.
EVE just supports people who like to be trolls from the safety of their homes and computers, which is fine I suppose. It is the same type of people who troll forums behind fake names.
If you really want to show your stuff, dominate in the real world where you have to actually get along with people in civilization and not be a dick.
Of course they do, but their ability to troll is more limited.
I play SWTOR, on a non-PvP server. Outside of very limited areas, you can't do anything to me. You can't damage my stuff, there are no repair bills for PvP, you can't enter my stronghold without permission, I can put you on ignore and we won't play together.
EVE doesn't have that ability, it only takes a few jerks to spoil the game. You're defending it, perhaps you're one of them? Such a game is naturally going to attract such players of course.
There is little demand for uranium, so the supply isn't growing much, that can be solved.
The cost of the fuel is trivial compared to the cost of building the plant.
Wind and solar currently get subsidies, take those away, tax carbon, and nuclear will make sense again, if of course you don't keep blocking it at every turn.
EVE tends to do better here because the game allows for practically all player assets to be destroyed and leave the economy
Yes, but what is broken about EVE is that while you can smash a player's stuff, that player can't actually get revenge.
Oh sure, they can build back up and smash your stuff, but lets be honest, that isn't likely to happen.
What is more likely to happen is the person who lost everything has nothing to live for and decides to kill the player who hurt them.
In the real world, if you actual treat people the way people do in EVE, sooner or later, someone will do something about it, and it won't be to smash your stuff, but rather you.
Frankly, I think it is only a matter of time before someone playing the game gets hurt bad enough to track down a player in real life and kill them.
EVE is overrated - it's just a libertarian fantasy-land without any of the truly damaging human consequences.
Yes, EVE's problem is that it allows player 1 to be a complete dick about things, screw you over, and totally get away with it.
There is no real justice, it is like the wild west, but without the ability to hunt that player down and kill them.
If you behave in the real world the way players behave in EVE, you wouldn't live very long. Sooner or later, someone would simply shoot you and be done with it.
Yet the price of what those stations produced didnt reflect the prices of the raw materials needed, and stations making what should be large profits just swallow the money into oblivion, and when stations should be out of money they magically have an endless supply anyways.
Yes, but I suspect that if you could actually do all that and make it real, then it wouldn't be any fun.
The whole idea of a game is to win, to come out on top. There has to be a way to do that.
In reality, most people can't do that. :)