Linux kind of carried the Opteron for the first year or so, since it had 64-bit and NUMA support, while M$ obligingly waited to release any such thing until Intel had an offering as well. Maybe AMD learned something from that.
It's the old P3 architecture. I wasn't trying to imply that current C2D-based Xeons use that kind of power. Sorry for the confusion.
I don't recall exact numbers, but my C2D and new Xeons definitely use more power at idle and low loads. I don't have apples-to-apples comparisons, though.:-(
If you fully load them down, my X2s use nearly as much as the Core2 systems - but when lightly loaded, my experience mirrors that of the article, that the X2 systems use significantly less power.
In our call center, we built a large batch of X2-based systems - nothing too fancy, just an X2/3800, two gigs of memory, a 250-gig drive, a DVD burner, a 6200tc video card, and 19" LCD monitors. The cases and power supplies were pretty cheap - I think $35 for the case and a "400-watt" power supply. (Yes, the quotes are there for a reason.)
In order to size out the UPS units, we broke out the old, trusty Kill-A-Watt. In logging into a PDC server, browsing the web, checking email, etc., then logging out, the peak draw for one machine and monitor together was 140 watts, with the load *most* of the time at 80-100 watts. Those are some spankily low numbers, especially when you consider that the monitor's contribution was probably 25-40 watts.
And, as we speak, I have a dual-socket, dual-core opteron with a 15K SCSI raid array and 8 gigs running just a few feet away from me, with 4 instances of Prime95 running. Kill-A-Watt says 296 watts with all of that going on. This is going to replace an old 4x700 MHz Xeon server which draws 500-700 watts. The power factor, however, is just 0.7 - I really need a better power supply in there.
Tell him how much you appreciate all of his efforts, and that you're behind him all the way. Tell him that you support him entirely, and think that all of his detractors can get lost.
At the end, say, "And so again, in closing, thank you SO MUCH for your web site, The Pirate Bay.":-)
I'm not blaming military spending for the imbalance, what you said is all fine. I'm speaking solely on the matter of energy... I'm just saying that *at worst*, we could spend the same amount of money on something different, have just as much energy, and more stability and security. We'd also see much less polution.
At best, we'd actually spend less money, and see even more benefits. As for congress pulling their heads out, don't hold your breath. They care first and foremost about getting donations to their personal funds, secondly about keeping in the good graces of the party, and everything else is just fluff.
Had that graph extended back to the 70's, the little rise in price recently would be all but invisible. Sure, there's been one short-term rise because of a lack of silicon, but they are going to drop again. Several companies are going to finish fabs entirely for solar panels within the next two years.
Even ignoring the war, we pay a TON of money on an ongoing basis in military budgets to protect the oil assets in the Middle East. By spending on solar, wind, or other renewable generation inside the country instead, we could break even *at worst*.
Neither technology, taken alone, is adequate... but together, they make a VERY good team. The main benefit that solar has over wind is that you don't have to erect a tower.
As you probably know, trying to make power with wind is pretty useless unless you're 30 feet, 50 feet, or higher *above* nearby structures/trees/etc.. If you're in a city, there is no way you're going to get a permit to put a wind generator on top of a 50- or 100-foot tower in your back yard, but putting panels on your roof is no problem at all.
But there are a lot more hot, sunny places than cold, sunny places. Say your efficiency drops by 15%, but your daily insolation goes up by 30%... you still win out.
Great. Produce that technology in something you can install on your roof, and basically forget about for 30 years, and at a competitive cost to PV cells. You'll be a very rich person.
In areas with the highest electricity costs and the highest rebates/incentives, ROI can happen in 5 years.
In tiered markets, where the higher usage of electricity costs you much more than the base usage, a properly-sized solar outfit can do it in 3 years.
As for taking a loan on your solar outfit, look at it this way: Pay money to some electric corp every month, or spend the same amount of money on your solar cells. In the first case, you'll pay forever. In the second, you'll pay for a while, then get to enjoy the benefits. It's like leasing vs. buying a car.
The really nifty thing is that if we didn't want to, we wouldn't have to go to space or fusion. Between solar and wind, we can already produce very nearly all of the power we need, just not as cheaply as we can with coal. Improvements need to be made to the grid to more robustly pass power around the country (from windy or sunny spots to the others), but it can be done. And, prices do continue to drop as time goes on.
Even ignoring environmental considerations, I'll bet that a lot of people would rather make a monthly payment on their solar panels than give that same amount of money to the power company.
The great thing is that we have a loooooot of land available for solar cells. Folks who live on the Eastern seaboard, or the Southern end of the West coast don't realize it, but the rest of the country has lots and lots of space.
Not only would most people not mind seeing solar cells on rooftops, they certainly wouldn't mind seeing them in the relatively empty areas. Look at maps of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and parts of Texas and Utah. There's a whoooooole lot of land just waiting to be filled, in areas where folks won't mind it, and they'll produce a good amount of electricity.
Sure, wind and solar power generation have subtle effects on the environment (so do farts, for crying out loud), but they're nowhere near the effects of traditional power generation.
Trojan 105's are a pretty favorite battery. Or, if your pocketbooks were enormous, you could go with submarine batteries. Single-cell, so 2.3V each, at 5000 or so amp-hours, and they're made to be maintained and kept going forever. Hook 24 of those up in series to your 48V inverter...
You can, just not a very good one. I know a couple of guys who went into engineering for the wrong reasons. One was because he realized that architects don't make much, and the other because he wanted a job in an office. Neither of them turned out very good. One makes a decent living simply because he works 60-70 hours per week, the other has 6 or 7 years experience, and still makes less than $60k.
"They avoid math and science because its HARD and not cool."
Amen. In my ME degree, you took enough math that by taking just *one* extra course, you got a minor in math as well. Ask 100 high school kids, ready to go into college, if they're willing to take that much math... you won't have many takers. Then tell them that the requirements for the ME program (at least at my univeristy) also had more courses and credit hours than any other program in the university. See how many of them still want to sign up.
I think that the greatest strength of many of the European education systems is not that tuition is free or cheap, it's that they try to steer someone into something that they like, and something of which they're capable. They don't tell people that you're not worth anything if you're not a doctor or lawyer, they tell them "Hey, if you're not good at math, but you like working on cars, terrific! You'll make a great mechanic, you'll be a valuable part of society, and we'd love to help you out with that."
I think that the money would end up going to all of the people who wouldn't have been able to go to college, they'll just pick engineering to get a free ride, and most of them will wash out when hey see how tough it is.
I'd rather see free tuition for *anyone* getting a bachelors degree, as long as they work or teach in the field.
As for letting foreign workers come into the country, I don't know if that will help. Even though an Indian working in America might be cheaper than an American working in America, it's still a lot more expensive than an Indian working in India, or a Chinese engineer working in China. Outsourcing doesn't just happen to tech support, you know. A surprising amount of the electronics industry is based on the concept of "We'll spec out what we need, let a Taiwanese company design it, they'll produce it in China, and put our name on it." I'm not just talking about cheap electronics, either, but some >$1000 devices as well. I once had to work on a Sony laptop that had cost almost $2k, and when I tracked down the motherboard model, it was just a generic Taiwanese board that was sold to many different "manufacturers" to put in their own case.
You're forgetting something... for people who really want to go to college, and have shown that they can apply themselves, there's already anywhere from some to a lot of aid available, and the better student you are, the more is usually there.
By giving free tuition simply based on choosing an area of study, you're more likely to simply funnel all sorts of people into the program who aren't qualified and won't enjoy it, simply because they think "Hey, free tuition, AND I get to be an engineer!"
It's sort of like the programs that many hospitals have... they'll pay for your nursing education if you agree to work for them for a certain amount of time. I know a number of people who went that route, and a surprising number quit the profession all together right after they fulfill their commitment, or just work the bare minimum to keep their nursing license. Hospitals are still short of nurses, and especially short of *quality* nurses.
People need to choose a career based on what they like and are capable of... not just which one will give them a free ride.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to pretend that we're at the top of the heap. But an amazing number of engineering jobs are moving overseas not because of quality, but simply because of salary. It's a looooot cheaper to hire ten Chinese engineers than ten engineers in the USA. And if your product is being manufactured in China (which is, again, quite likely because of cost), there are other benefits in communication between engineering and manufacturing, etc..
That being said, I think there's already enough of an economic stimulous to get motivated people into engineering. The MEs and EEs that I went to school with are, without exception, making very good money. One guy, who had very good grades, started out just shy of $100k per year with just a bachelors degree. Two of my other friends, one an EE, and one an ME, ended up getting married, so they found jobs at the same plant. Between the two, they were pulling in over $200k before long.
The reason why there are such good paying jobs is because ME and EE are *hard*. At least being a good one, anyway. We do *not* need to lead people into the field who just want free tuition, as opposed to people who are actually capable of the career. It would be like all of the schools who lured unsuspecting people into paying lots of money for intensive courses to get their MCSE, on the lure of high salaries afterwards... only to find out that not only were they not prepared for the real world, there were a hundred thousand other schmucks just like them fighting for the same low-paying jobs.
Now, there is a different class of engineer with which I am familiar... the civil engineer. *Most* of the CEs that I know have boring jobs that they don't like, and don't make that good of money. There's an interesting correlation... those who are in that position went into civil because it sounded easier than ME or EE. They're just the sort of people you don't really want to shovel into the engineering program. (For the record, the civies that I know who are truly interested and qualified do pretty well, although not as well as the ME or EEs.)
Slashdot Mirror
And there's be naked boys wrestling in a steamy shower.
Linux kind of carried the Opteron for the first year or so, since it had 64-bit and NUMA support, while M$ obligingly waited to release any such thing until Intel had an offering as well. Maybe AMD learned something from that.
Intel re-released the Pentium-D line, using this technology.
It's the old P3 architecture. I wasn't trying to imply that current C2D-based Xeons use that kind of power. Sorry for the confusion.
:-(
I don't recall exact numbers, but my C2D and new Xeons definitely use more power at idle and low loads. I don't have apples-to-apples comparisons, though.
If you fully load them down, my X2s use nearly as much as the Core2 systems - but when lightly loaded, my experience mirrors that of the article, that the X2 systems use significantly less power.
In our call center, we built a large batch of X2-based systems - nothing too fancy, just an X2/3800, two gigs of memory, a 250-gig drive, a DVD burner, a 6200tc video card, and 19" LCD monitors. The cases and power supplies were pretty cheap - I think $35 for the case and a "400-watt" power supply. (Yes, the quotes are there for a reason.)
In order to size out the UPS units, we broke out the old, trusty Kill-A-Watt. In logging into a PDC server, browsing the web, checking email, etc., then logging out, the peak draw for one machine and monitor together was 140 watts, with the load *most* of the time at 80-100 watts. Those are some spankily low numbers, especially when you consider that the monitor's contribution was probably 25-40 watts.
And, as we speak, I have a dual-socket, dual-core opteron with a 15K SCSI raid array and 8 gigs running just a few feet away from me, with 4 instances of Prime95 running. Kill-A-Watt says 296 watts with all of that going on. This is going to replace an old 4x700 MHz Xeon server which draws 500-700 watts. The power factor, however, is just 0.7 - I really need a better power supply in there.
Tell him how much you appreciate all of his efforts, and that you're behind him all the way. Tell him that you support him entirely, and think that all of his detractors can get lost.
At the end, say, "And so again, in closing, thank you SO MUCH for your web site, The Pirate Bay."
I'm not blaming military spending for the imbalance, what you said is all fine. I'm speaking solely on the matter of energy... I'm just saying that *at worst*, we could spend the same amount of money on something different, have just as much energy, and more stability and security. We'd also see much less polution.
At best, we'd actually spend less money, and see even more benefits. As for congress pulling their heads out, don't hold your breath. They care first and foremost about getting donations to their personal funds, secondly about keeping in the good graces of the party, and everything else is just fluff.
Had that graph extended back to the 70's, the little rise in price recently would be all but invisible. Sure, there's been one short-term rise because of a lack of silicon, but they are going to drop again. Several companies are going to finish fabs entirely for solar panels within the next two years.
Even ignoring the war, we pay a TON of money on an ongoing basis in military budgets to protect the oil assets in the Middle East. By spending on solar, wind, or other renewable generation inside the country instead, we could break even *at worst*.
Neither technology, taken alone, is adequate... but together, they make a VERY good team. The main benefit that solar has over wind is that you don't have to erect a tower.
As you probably know, trying to make power with wind is pretty useless unless you're 30 feet, 50 feet, or higher *above* nearby structures/trees/etc.. If you're in a city, there is no way you're going to get a permit to put a wind generator on top of a 50- or 100-foot tower in your back yard, but putting panels on your roof is no problem at all.
But there are a lot more hot, sunny places than cold, sunny places. Say your efficiency drops by 15%, but your daily insolation goes up by 30%... you still win out.
Great. Produce that technology in something you can install on your roof, and basically forget about for 30 years, and at a competitive cost to PV cells. You'll be a very rich person.
In areas with the highest electricity costs and the highest rebates/incentives, ROI can happen in 5 years.
In tiered markets, where the higher usage of electricity costs you much more than the base usage, a properly-sized solar outfit can do it in 3 years.
As for taking a loan on your solar outfit, look at it this way: Pay money to some electric corp every month, or spend the same amount of money on your solar cells. In the first case, you'll pay forever. In the second, you'll pay for a while, then get to enjoy the benefits. It's like leasing vs. buying a car.
The really nifty thing is that if we didn't want to, we wouldn't have to go to space or fusion. Between solar and wind, we can already produce very nearly all of the power we need, just not as cheaply as we can with coal. Improvements need to be made to the grid to more robustly pass power around the country (from windy or sunny spots to the others), but it can be done. And, prices do continue to drop as time goes on.
Even ignoring environmental considerations, I'll bet that a lot of people would rather make a monthly payment on their solar panels than give that same amount of money to the power company.
The great thing is that we have a loooooot of land available for solar cells. Folks who live on the Eastern seaboard, or the Southern end of the West coast don't realize it, but the rest of the country has lots and lots of space.
Not only would most people not mind seeing solar cells on rooftops, they certainly wouldn't mind seeing them in the relatively empty areas. Look at maps of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and parts of Texas and Utah. There's a whoooooole lot of land just waiting to be filled, in areas where folks won't mind it, and they'll produce a good amount of electricity.
Sure, wind and solar power generation have subtle effects on the environment (so do farts, for crying out loud), but they're nowhere near the effects of traditional power generation.
Nope, $/W.
It's how much it costs you to get a panel capable of producing electricity at a rate of 1 watt.
If your panel can produce 100 watts, and you spent $400 on it, that's $4/watt.
Trojan 105's are a pretty favorite battery. Or, if your pocketbooks were enormous, you could go with submarine batteries. Single-cell, so 2.3V each, at 5000 or so amp-hours, and they're made to be maintained and kept going forever. Hook 24 of those up in series to your 48V inverter...
*woosh*
Surely, someone will r00t the terminal, take over the plane's guidance systems, and from there, the entire air traffic network!!!
Is there anything they do that ISN'T entertaining?
"You can't bribe someone to be a nerd."
You can, just not a very good one. I know a couple of guys who went into engineering for the wrong reasons. One was because he realized that architects don't make much, and the other because he wanted a job in an office. Neither of them turned out very good. One makes a decent living simply because he works 60-70 hours per week, the other has 6 or 7 years experience, and still makes less than $60k.
"They avoid math and science because its HARD and not cool."
Amen. In my ME degree, you took enough math that by taking just *one* extra course, you got a minor in math as well. Ask 100 high school kids, ready to go into college, if they're willing to take that much math... you won't have many takers. Then tell them that the requirements for the ME program (at least at my univeristy) also had more courses and credit hours than any other program in the university. See how many of them still want to sign up.
I think that the greatest strength of many of the European education systems is not that tuition is free or cheap, it's that they try to steer someone into something that they like, and something of which they're capable. They don't tell people that you're not worth anything if you're not a doctor or lawyer, they tell them "Hey, if you're not good at math, but you like working on cars, terrific! You'll make a great mechanic, you'll be a valuable part of society, and we'd love to help you out with that."
I think that the money would end up going to all of the people who wouldn't have been able to go to college, they'll just pick engineering to get a free ride, and most of them will wash out when hey see how tough it is.
I'd rather see free tuition for *anyone* getting a bachelors degree, as long as they work or teach in the field.
As for letting foreign workers come into the country, I don't know if that will help. Even though an Indian working in America might be cheaper than an American working in America, it's still a lot more expensive than an Indian working in India, or a Chinese engineer working in China. Outsourcing doesn't just happen to tech support, you know. A surprising amount of the electronics industry is based on the concept of "We'll spec out what we need, let a Taiwanese company design it, they'll produce it in China, and put our name on it." I'm not just talking about cheap electronics, either, but some >$1000 devices as well. I once had to work on a Sony laptop that had cost almost $2k, and when I tracked down the motherboard model, it was just a generic Taiwanese board that was sold to many different "manufacturers" to put in their own case.
You're forgetting something... for people who really want to go to college, and have shown that they can apply themselves, there's already anywhere from some to a lot of aid available, and the better student you are, the more is usually there.
By giving free tuition simply based on choosing an area of study, you're more likely to simply funnel all sorts of people into the program who aren't qualified and won't enjoy it, simply because they think "Hey, free tuition, AND I get to be an engineer!"
It's sort of like the programs that many hospitals have... they'll pay for your nursing education if you agree to work for them for a certain amount of time. I know a number of people who went that route, and a surprising number quit the profession all together right after they fulfill their commitment, or just work the bare minimum to keep their nursing license. Hospitals are still short of nurses, and especially short of *quality* nurses.
People need to choose a career based on what they like and are capable of... not just which one will give them a free ride.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to pretend that we're at the top of the heap. But an amazing number of engineering jobs are moving overseas not because of quality, but simply because of salary. It's a looooot cheaper to hire ten Chinese engineers than ten engineers in the USA. And if your product is being manufactured in China (which is, again, quite likely because of cost), there are other benefits in communication between engineering and manufacturing, etc..
That being said, I think there's already enough of an economic stimulous to get motivated people into engineering. The MEs and EEs that I went to school with are, without exception, making very good money. One guy, who had very good grades, started out just shy of $100k per year with just a bachelors degree. Two of my other friends, one an EE, and one an ME, ended up getting married, so they found jobs at the same plant. Between the two, they were pulling in over $200k before long.
The reason why there are such good paying jobs is because ME and EE are *hard*. At least being a good one, anyway. We do *not* need to lead people into the field who just want free tuition, as opposed to people who are actually capable of the career. It would be like all of the schools who lured unsuspecting people into paying lots of money for intensive courses to get their MCSE, on the lure of high salaries afterwards... only to find out that not only were they not prepared for the real world, there were a hundred thousand other schmucks just like them fighting for the same low-paying jobs.
Now, there is a different class of engineer with which I am familiar... the civil engineer. *Most* of the CEs that I know have boring jobs that they don't like, and don't make that good of money. There's an interesting correlation... those who are in that position went into civil because it sounded easier than ME or EE. They're just the sort of people you don't really want to shovel into the engineering program. (For the record, the civies that I know who are truly interested and qualified do pretty well, although not as well as the ME or EEs.)
... because in my area, "cable" is fiber into and through the neighborhoods, and only 'cable' from a big box to your house.