I'm not usually one to be the person to call out the study, but as soon as I saw the test system for efficiency using a G3258 while performance remained consistent from the original system which was equipped with a 4820K I knew something was wrong. Their entire gaming benchmark suite consisted of Unigen Heaven which is specifically designed to test GPU performance excluding external factors like a CPU holding things back.
They need to redo the test and show the same performance scaling in real world gaming scenarios if they want gamers to take them seriously while still making power conscious decisions.
If it was a quarter of 2.4ghz it would still be about 13Mbps, which is generally enough for most tasks. I would far prefer a reliable 13Mbps that covers a while multi-acre lot than 54Mbps that I can't even use at one end of my house.
The leave is paid at 55% under the employment insurance program. Many companies have a benefits package that tops that up to some higher portion of your salary. Doe to the way taxes work out in Canada and the lack of any costs of working you don't really lose as much as you would think overall.
It's the standard amount of time in Canada. There is a regular marternity leave as well as a parental leave which can be divied up between the parents as they see fit. The total time adds up to a year of leave.
I do have a habit of forgetting about the 2011 based chips due to price of the whole platform. Maybe I'll have to take a look at whatever sits in that space when it comes time to replace my, now aging, 3570k that didn't want to overclock much.
You do make a pretty good point, but I doubt that programmers will take much advantage of an IGP to offload physics for example unless it can be completely transparent to the program that it's happening since you can never rely on the performance or even availability. So if you spend time optimizing that you end up taking time away from other things that could be done that target a broader group of people (figuring out which parts of your program could thread out to better support more cores as an example).
For most things the IGP is just either going to sit there being disabled because a real GPU does that work, or it's going to be displaying facebook because someone was sold an i7 where an i3/Pentium/Celeron would be just as fast.
and again, they don't have consumer level pricing, and don't have unlocked multipliers. What I'm wishing for is essentially an i5 and i7 'max core' edition that removes the IGP but has a mirror of the existing cores in it's place so they each are essentially like 2 K edition chips stuck together.
That would be a huge leap in progress for the CPU side of things for people who run dedicated graphics cards already. In gaming benchmarks the amount of difference at usable resolutions like 1080P and higher there is really little noticeable difference between a 2600k and a 6700k already. It's almost like CPU performance gains just stopped being pushed forward. Why can't we get twice as much processing power than a chip that's nearly 4 years old. Heck, even an i7-9xx is still pretty usable in most cases and they came out in 2008/2009.
I just wish that Intel would make a version that's 8 cores instead with lots of cache rather than waste the space and power on the integrated graphics. If you are gaming with it then you would have a dedicated card since all IGPs pretty much suck, and if you aren't gaming on it there isn't much point to improving it since even the most basic IGP can run video and 2d applications just fine.
Right, but again... how many 40 year periods would someone who invested in just indexes lose money? How about 30 year periods, or even 20 year periods?
You can't predict what the exact return will be, but you can predict that over the long haul you will be ahead. This is not true with gambling as the player always loses.
This is incorrect. That is only true if the market is a zero sum game, which it is not.
Sure, you can make it similar to gambling if you want to try to beat the market through speculation on short term moves. That's a choice you make and not the design of the system like gambling is.
Gambling = Nearly Guaranteed Loss over time Market = Nearly Guaranteed Win over time
For instance, if you take a million people and all of their retirement savings you instead play blackjack for 40 years then at the end how many of them would have lost money? Pretty much all of them.
How many 40 year periods has a good mix of income producing assets have a nearly guaranteed failure rate? None.
Of course, if you cherry pick 1996-2012 you can get a small trend line... but if you start in 1996 (instead of 1998 like the article states, as most skeptics avoid that since it's such an easy counter-point) you have no statistically significant warming 17 years. Benjamin Santer in http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract declared that "Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."
Translated, it essentially means that if there is no significant warming for 17 year periods we need to start searching for the real causes and not just sink money in to finding more human causes to blame.
Then you add in that the sun goes in to a lull and suddenly we have no more warming and a huge number of record colds being recorded in the northern hemisphere yet the alarmist have been shouting it from the rooftops that changes in the sun are too small to affect climate citing the TSI changes rather than the changes in different frequencies (which are quite large). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
Maybe instead of people having a decrease of scientific understanding they are just waking up to the facts and as they learn more they realize the alarmists are hand waving ninnies.
So you mean on this page where they estimate a life span of a perfectly empty 128GiB drive using TLC nand at 2.5 years... but if it was 75% full then it would be a quarter of that, which is pretty close to what I estimated before of likely to fail between 0.85 and 2.55 years?
You mean this test where almost all the drives are used at very low amounts filled, and the drives that are used with large static data fail in extremely short periods of time?
Of course that math is done on the assumption that 10GB per day can be spread over the entire drive which isn't the case once you have 100GB of data on it, suddenly that 10 years gets reduced to 1.7 years years and that's the estimated mean time to failure meaning the actual failure rate is probably withing +- 50% of that, so somewhere between 0.85 and 2.55 years is likely. That's bordering on the realm of "Not a reliable place to put data".
Of course, your important data should probably be stored in multiple locations locally, as well as an additional copy in another physical location anyway if you really want to keep it, but citing those figures is not anywhere near a reasonable usage pattern of most drives.
Did they mean 4 cups as in 4 250ml units of coffee... or 4 cups as in 4 actual sized coffees available at retailers that are generally 3 measured cups for the large or extra large sizes that seem so popular?
1. It's quick, just one boot and you start to notice and after your general use kicks in, so does the cache. I know because as a troubleshooting step I had to disable my SRT on my main drive a while back and it was instant that my machine was sluggish and unresponsive, but right after I turned it back on and restarted you could notice it speeding up again. A couple of hours and I wouldn't be able to tell it was ever disabled.
2. SRT runs in two modes, one where writes go directly to the drive or one where they are cached to flash first. I use the former since it's my boot drive and if something bad happens to the flash I don't want to be non-bootable. I'm not sure about how it works with the Seagate SSHD's.
3. A 120GB SSD and a 1TB SSHD is around the same price (give or take 20 bucks depending on sales and brands and things) . . . I guess it depends if you need more space than the SSD provides. My own work laptop I have about 45GB of data. But do I really need all my windows updates uninstalls fast, or the ISO of the Win7 install fast? How about my 2008 mail archives, how fast do they really need to go when I use them once a year. 8GB of SSHD cache would make this machine feel pretty snappy since the vast majority of the stuff I do every day is the same applications. Most of my actual work data isn't even on my laptop anyway, so accessing it over a VPN or corporate network is terribly slow anyway, no local storage will fix that. Plus, what if I want to take a few HD movies on a work trip, or someoen asks me to record a full res video of something for training purposes. Having the storage available is a huge plus in a lot of cases. Though an external drive would work you have to carry it around at all times and adds to the costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Try a singing Tesla coil. Kids will love making music with lightning.
"Scientist" . . .http://sites.google.com/site/greeningthebeast/website-builder/Nat.jpg
I'm not usually one to be the person to call out the study, but as soon as I saw the test system for efficiency using a G3258 while performance remained consistent from the original system which was equipped with a 4820K I knew something was wrong. Their entire gaming benchmark suite consisted of Unigen Heaven which is specifically designed to test GPU performance excluding external factors like a CPU holding things back.
They need to redo the test and show the same performance scaling in real world gaming scenarios if they want gamers to take them seriously while still making power conscious decisions.
If it was a quarter of 2.4ghz it would still be about 13Mbps, which is generally enough for most tasks. I would far prefer a reliable 13Mbps that covers a while multi-acre lot than 54Mbps that I can't even use at one end of my house.
The leave is paid at 55% under the employment insurance program. Many companies have a benefits package that tops that up to some higher portion of your salary. Doe to the way taxes work out in Canada and the lack of any costs of working you don't really lose as much as you would think overall.
It's the standard amount of time in Canada. There is a regular marternity leave as well as a parental leave which can be divied up between the parents as they see fit. The total time adds up to a year of leave.
I do have a habit of forgetting about the 2011 based chips due to price of the whole platform. Maybe I'll have to take a look at whatever sits in that space when it comes time to replace my, now aging, 3570k that didn't want to overclock much.
You do make a pretty good point, but I doubt that programmers will take much advantage of an IGP to offload physics for example unless it can be completely transparent to the program that it's happening since you can never rely on the performance or even availability. So if you spend time optimizing that you end up taking time away from other things that could be done that target a broader group of people (figuring out which parts of your program could thread out to better support more cores as an example). For most things the IGP is just either going to sit there being disabled because a real GPU does that work, or it's going to be displaying facebook because someone was sold an i7 where an i3/Pentium/Celeron would be just as fast.
But the K parts don't support VT-d so they aren't really ideal for VMs anyway, just mostly for power users that want to be able to tweak their gear.
and again, they don't have consumer level pricing, and don't have unlocked multipliers. What I'm wishing for is essentially an i5 and i7 'max core' edition that removes the IGP but has a mirror of the existing cores in it's place so they each are essentially like 2 K edition chips stuck together.
That would be a huge leap in progress for the CPU side of things for people who run dedicated graphics cards already. In gaming benchmarks the amount of difference at usable resolutions like 1080P and higher there is really little noticeable difference between a 2600k and a 6700k already. It's almost like CPU performance gains just stopped being pushed forward. Why can't we get twice as much processing power than a chip that's nearly 4 years old. Heck, even an i7-9xx is still pretty usable in most cases and they came out in 2008/2009.
Those aren't enthusiast parts and aren't multiplier unlocked. They also aren't available in larger core configs with consumer level pricing.
I just wish that Intel would make a version that's 8 cores instead with lots of cache rather than waste the space and power on the integrated graphics. If you are gaming with it then you would have a dedicated card since all IGPs pretty much suck, and if you aren't gaming on it there isn't much point to improving it since even the most basic IGP can run video and 2d applications just fine.
That must be why as the glaciers recede they are revealing large plant life that used to be there.
Right, but again... how many 40 year periods would someone who invested in just indexes lose money? How about 30 year periods, or even 20 year periods? You can't predict what the exact return will be, but you can predict that over the long haul you will be ahead. This is not true with gambling as the player always loses.
That is just completely wrong, Obvious troll is obvious.
This is incorrect. That is only true if the market is a zero sum game, which it is not.
Sure, you can make it similar to gambling if you want to try to beat the market through speculation on short term moves. That's a choice you make and not the design of the system like gambling is.
Gambling = Nearly Guaranteed Loss over time
Market = Nearly Guaranteed Win over time
Markets don't work like a casino though.
For instance, if you take a million people and all of their retirement savings you instead play blackjack for 40 years then at the end how many of them would have lost money? Pretty much all of them.
How many 40 year periods has a good mix of income producing assets have a nearly guaranteed failure rate? None.
In other words: Welcome to the grind fest, where if it doesn't consume your entire life then you lose.
Of course, if you cherry pick 1996-2012 you can get a small trend line... but if you start in 1996 (instead of 1998 like the article states, as most skeptics avoid that since it's such an easy counter-point) you have no statistically significant warming 17 years. Benjamin Santer in http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract declared that "Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature."
Translated, it essentially means that if there is no significant warming for 17 year periods we need to start searching for the real causes and not just sink money in to finding more human causes to blame.
Then you add in that the sun goes in to a lull and suddenly we have no more warming and a huge number of record colds being recorded in the northern hemisphere yet the alarmist have been shouting it from the rooftops that changes in the sun are too small to affect climate citing the TSI changes rather than the changes in different frequencies (which are quite large). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
Maybe instead of people having a decrease of scientific understanding they are just waking up to the facts and as they learn more they realize the alarmists are hand waving ninnies.
So you mean on this page where they estimate a life span of a perfectly empty 128GiB drive using TLC nand at 2.5 years... but if it was 75% full then it would be a quarter of that, which is pretty close to what I estimated before of likely to fail between 0.85 and 2.55 years?
You mean this test where almost all the drives are used at very low amounts filled, and the drives that are used with large static data fail in extremely short periods of time?
Of course that math is done on the assumption that 10GB per day can be spread over the entire drive which isn't the case once you have 100GB of data on it, suddenly that 10 years gets reduced to 1.7 years years and that's the estimated mean time to failure meaning the actual failure rate is probably withing +- 50% of that, so somewhere between 0.85 and 2.55 years is likely. That's bordering on the realm of "Not a reliable place to put data". Of course, your important data should probably be stored in multiple locations locally, as well as an additional copy in another physical location anyway if you really want to keep it, but citing those figures is not anywhere near a reasonable usage pattern of most drives.
Did they mean 4 cups as in 4 250ml units of coffee... or 4 cups as in 4 actual sized coffees available at retailers that are generally 3 measured cups for the large or extra large sizes that seem so popular?
2. SRT runs in two modes, one where writes go directly to the drive or one where they are cached to flash first. I use the former since it's my boot drive and if something bad happens to the flash I don't want to be non-bootable. I'm not sure about how it works with the Seagate SSHD's.
3. A 120GB SSD and a 1TB SSHD is around the same price (give or take 20 bucks depending on sales and brands and things) . . . I guess it depends if you need more space than the SSD provides. My own work laptop I have about 45GB of data. But do I really need all my windows updates uninstalls fast, or the ISO of the Win7 install fast? How about my 2008 mail archives, how fast do they really need to go when I use them once a year. 8GB of SSHD cache would make this machine feel pretty snappy since the vast majority of the stuff I do every day is the same applications. Most of my actual work data isn't even on my laptop anyway, so accessing it over a VPN or corporate network is terribly slow anyway, no local storage will fix that. Plus, what if I want to take a few HD movies on a work trip, or someoen asks me to record a full res video of something for training purposes. Having the storage available is a huge plus in a lot of cases. Though an external drive would work you have to carry it around at all times and adds to the costs.
If you don't have most of your stuff stored via a library or other link on an NSA or server . . .
Wait a sec . . . How do you access all of your data at the NSA? do they offer a subscription service or something?