using your analogy, when you use a rest stop on the highway, and you see the retarded commentary on the walls, does it devastate you? emotionally damage you? no. you just roll your eyes and forget about it 10 seconds later. so why would the snarky juvenile idiocy damage you on the internet?
What if an anonymous blog entry appeared on some forum with a WMV of you rubbing one out on the jon to a copy of your moms Sears & Roebuck maternity lingerie catalog? (apologies to Sam Kinneson for stealing this) Now I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that you'd have a freaking breakdown if the image went viral and hundreds of milions of people could identify you from the photo and for the rest of your life you were known by that.
I agree with most of your post, but think your cavalier "anything goes" attitude is as naive as the the guy who thinks anonymity = town forum.
How about a 16-core CPU with 35W per core, which by the numbers above would indicate a trend downward? 16*35W=560W. Whoops!
Maybe a 32-core CPU with 20W per core? 32*20=640W. Double whoops!
Why are these all Whoops? This 32-core CPU will now replace 16 or 8 blades, which are far less efficient?
However, my point still stands: what if in five years we CANNOT buy a 50W CPU? What if Intel and AMD will be manufacturing only eight-core CPUs at the low end, with a record-breaking 15W per core? That's still 120W, which is more than today.
The entire reason for core2duo was OEM pressure. OEMs set the limits on power, not Intel/AMD. Your concern is about the desktop segment, not the server. Servers have much higher limits. Desktop is limited by noise and power delivery (a 15A breaker can only deliver so much, and too many fans makes people not buy your product). Unless every citizen in the USA (or whatever country you are in) upgrades their home wiring to higher amperage rating, and goes slightly deaf, IMHO you have nothing to worry about, OEMs will always put the kibosh on 100W+ volume SKUs.:-)
Your numbers need correcting. First, this is platform power, which includes a lot more than CPU (the memory subsystem can have a large impact too). Second, look at the power per core:
QX6800: 319W / 4 = 79.8 W QuadFX: 498W / 4 = 124.5 W V8 : 474W / 8 = 59.5 W
So your conclusion is reversed: this is the kind of trend we want for power: downward.
In 1995 the Pentium Pro introduced 36-bit addressing and combined with windows PAE at the time, could address 64 gibibytes (yes, "gibibytes") of memory.
It's been this way since D&D was played only on paper with dice. Even with EQ2 and WoW it's still basically the same.
Not even close. If that's all D&D was to you, you missed out entirely. Leveling was not the goal, storytelling was. If you recall, it took FOREVER to level, so much so that there was no need to define rules for class such as magic users above level 10: no one would ever get there! Sure there were lots of tables to show hit statistics, but loot and XP was up to the DM: books were just guidelines. The goal was to role play, not to level grind, hence the moniker RPG.
Remember when dying actually meant something in an RPG?
Remember how in Wizardry, you could lose a character that you spent weeks leveling... PERMANENTLY?
Or how it took literally a week of gameplay just to get a party of 6 players to survive to level 5 in The Bard's Tale?
Or how there were no cheat codes or spoilers online, because THERE WAS NO ONLINE! (Just BBS's, and they weren't much help.)
I dunno, I agree with previous posters that 90% was crap and we fondly remember the 10% because the experiences are intermixed with childhood fun (e.g. A snow day in 7th grade == extra hours of playing Conan or Stellar 7 on the A//e to the tune of "Moving Pictures".)
But I also think it is an industry out to make money, so a lot of resources will be spent catering to the lowest common denominator.
There are games out there that resemble old-school creativity with new-school tech (I just played some Myst-like flash game that had a lot of detail, forgot the name...), but they are just harder to find. I think our shorter attention spans and disposition to expect instant gratification prevent us from finding these games when there's a quicker fix to be had via WoW or GTA...
where i work, we all have laptops and desktop LCDs, so it is possible to work with two monitors.
downside is: when you switch back to mobile, all the settings are hosed, and when you reset them and switch back to desktop,... hosed again.
plus it is a big hassle to make sure applications pop up in the right windows, and making sure XP remembers that.
i program in linux through vnc, so i never really need more than one screen. even when i debugged device drivers, one screen was enough. when i edited tech docs, one screen was fine. so after 20+ years in the industry, i have never been satisfied with 2 monitors, and have done just fine with one.
i think the only apps that need it are animation/photo editing. otherwise, this is just about the coolness factor.
Actually, Intel put memory controller on die in 1997~2000 but never released the product. This was in response to the seg0 cost reduction effort that drove the http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,18726-page,1/art icle.html
But that was 10 years ago, so most of this audience wasn't even teenaged. Of course, embedded CPUs have been doing integration like this for 20+ years.
And also by your logic, the idea of integrating chipset components is tantamount to "ripping off" because those ideas are, um, so original? I guess if you ignore 30 years of embedded design.
Huh.
And this utter lack of comprehension is now a 5/Interesting?
Maybe Intel could just buy a graphics company that already has the technology demo something in 4 months. Like AMD did, again (recall their last their two biggest wins came from acquiring NexGen's intellectual property). AMD has a habit of making money by plagiarizing the work of other smaller companies they acquire. Whereas Intel apparently buys smaller companies and loses money:):) (er, whatever they bough and sold to Marvell for a huge loss). --ducks for cover--
When rights conflict, the law is supposed to mediate that conflict. It is arguable that playing a stereo might possibly be infringing on some right of your which you have not been able to name in a meaningful way. Shooting a person conflicts with their rights in a very well defined an drastic way. Understand?
I'll try ANOTHER example, because you're starting to catch on.
Imagine I burn my trash in my back yard. Every day. Tires, paper, wood, etc. In your world I have the right to do this because I'm not taking away anyone else's rights. But the smoke blows into your house, and you have to breath fumes all day. So you move because according to your logic, you don't have the right to complain, and i have to right to burn garbage (or blast a stereo and prevent you from getting sleep, same thing in your world). Ok, so I move too, and I move next door to you, and keep doing the same thing. You move again, I move too, etc.
You're life sucks, but too bad, because I have all the rights. So you don't have the right to be healthy, which is inhibited by my garbage burning (or stereo blasting)?
See, you can't win: my right to blast my stereo and prevent you from sleeping takes away your right to live a healthy life. Either one is not a freedom, or two freedoms are incompatible.
And you admit your misunderstanding in the last paragraph: The point is, it used to be that minimizing the amount in which this happened was considered important as freedom itself was important
That is the crux of the problem with your "freedom rulez!" view, you weasel out of responsibility except for things that you personally hold dear, and screw everyone else. Typical short sighted libertarian BS.
Yes TDP is "selected" based on power/performance tradeoffs, but that is nothing like it being a pure marketing decision. Marketing may say that market X has max power envelope Y, but after that it's the physical requirements of the chip that dictate the cross of performance/TDP.
vs.
You're making it sound as though TDP is like AMD's model numbers, completely arbitrary, and nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess we just see the same data completely differently.
I'm sorry, would you mind copying the part of my original post where I claimed this example defines every person who is pro-choice? Oh, I didn't say that? Now you know what a straw man argument is.
Here is your example:
"It is sick and sad that someone can have a "pro choice" bumper sticker, but not even think about the fact that they don't advocate personal freedom to choose in general, just personal freedom to make one particular choice, while they advocate taking other choices away from people."
You are claiming to know what is going on in their head and making a generalization that they take choices away from other people. Maybe that's not a straw man, but it sure is a poor argument. You invented an outcome based on your bias of said people and no facts.
This is called pro-freedom. The fact that you don't even seem to see this as an issue is exactly what I was addressing.
You are missing a key point. There are natural limits to freedom just like there are natural limits to population, or a limit to how much water you can put in a glass.
You told me to move somewhere else if I don't like your right to stay up all night with loud music. So you are taking away my rights. So I don't have the right to be left alone according to you. I don't have the freedom to get some sleep. Because if the entire planet was full of people like you, you would have effectively removed my rights and replaced them with yours.
I think you are missing the point that there is no such thing as 100% freedom. You always take away someone else's freedom in your pursuit to be free.
My gun example was perfect and you avoided it because it pokes a hole in your argument. Why don't I have the right to shoot you if you keep me up? You are physically molesting me with your stereo, why can't I do the same. Why am I less free than you? Do you not see how those two are the same, albeit extreme examples?
You are grossly idealizing freedom without realizing the practical obstacles to it. In order to exist as a society, people have to voluntarily give up some freedoms, or let them be moderated by mutually agreed upon rules and laws.
TDP is about the physical requirements to transfer power away from the silicon. If they bullshit their TDP numbers, then the HSF the OEMs use will be inadequate, and they will absolutely notice this in the form of chips failing from overheating.
Half wrong.
If they lowball TDP, the OEM designs an inadequate solution, and both Intel and AMD cpus will throttle more, reducing performance. If the throttle cannot cool the CPU, the catastrophic diode triggers, halting the CPU.
TDP is selected based on performance/cooling cost tradeoff, which is entirely based on the distribution of power of typical applications, as both companies have admitted in print. This can be fudged both for bragging rights, and to reduce OEM thermal solution cost, but it cannot be set so low as to impair performance. Sure, AMD/Intel could spec 5W TDP, the OEM would design a 5W solution, and the CPU would run as fast as a 200 MHz CPU because it throttles all the time. See?
if you don't know what IDD_max is then I guess it's unexplained
IDD_max is y-coordinate right-hand endpoint of the VRM load-line specification. The X coordinate is the Vcc at that Imax, which is a Vmin that affects writability of storage or sequential elements. Instantaneous drops are handled by caps on the board and on the die. If the VRM cannot supply this voltage, the circuits cannot switch. How does this relate to TDP? IDD_max is TDP / Voltage. TDP comes first, then IDD_max is spec'd. There is no need to spec a beefier VRM requirement if the CPU will not exceed a particular power threshold, which is TDP.
Your point is that AMD spec's MAX power and Intel does not, so AMD is more honest. This is factually incorrect, as they both us TDP numbers. Hopefully I've convinced you, as I am clearly neither an AMD or Intel fanboy, I just hate people spreading misinformation.
First of all, you don't even understand the terms:
TDP = Thermal Design Power. Not "total". Get your facts right.
You are totally wrong about TDP: TDP is entirely a marketing construct. It is based on a typical scenario. They choose a point arbitrarily that doesn't cause too much perf. loss from PowerNow!, but still reduces thermal solution cost. It's market pressure.
"AMD's argument goes like this: Modern desktop and notebook processors constantly scale up and down between full speed and an idle state, which AMD has branded "Cool 'n' Quiet". At a given time, pushed to full load by an application, AMD's chips run hotter and consume more power. But across a typical computing day--where a user might check his email or surf the Web--the processor idles more often then not. At idle, AMD's 90nm Athlon 64 X2 consumes 7.5 watts. A 35-watt, 65-nm chip will idle at 3.8 watts, AMD said. By comparison, the 65nm Core 2 Duo idles at 14.3 watts."
Marketing drones on the prowl. AMD took Intel's spec, changed what is considered a "typical" day, and said, "Hey look, we win!!!" I'm sure Intel will respond in kind.
AMD does not give MAX, if they did, they wouldn't be able to sell their products to any platform vendor. No one has spec'd MAX since pre 1GHz days.
Repeat after me: AMD DOES NOT SPEC MAX POWER. AMD DOES NOT SPEC MAX POWER. AMD DOES NOT SPEC MAX POWER>
Don't believe me? Here is their POWER THERMAL DATA SHEET, and it only specs TDP.
PowerNow! defines TDP as the max power of the CPU under TDP conditions. There's the rib. TDP conditions (see page 83 of aforementioned documents) are not explained, "please see your FAE for details." But we already know the answer to that.
Intel and AMD both spec to their own versions of what TDP means. Been that way since the 100W+ CPU appeared on the market.
It is sick and sad that someone can have a "pro choice" bumper sticker, but not even think about the fact that they don't advocate personal freedom to choose in general, just personal freedom to make one particular choice
It's sick and sad when people make straw-man arguments to defend a weak position about generalization of rights and what is a "right".
I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-red-meat. (Bet that hurts your head.) But I don't claim my one anecdotal position defines every pro-choice person.
Maybe you're missing the point: the hypothetical pro-choicers pro-animal-rights people you despise have generalized the notion of rights much more broadly than your mind can handle. If you listen to animal rights groups, they believe the same rights we afford humans we should extend to animals.
And there are even anti-abortion pro-animal-rights supporters, I just hope that fact doesn't make your head explode.
I think what you are having trouble understanding is not some kind of hypocrisy, but rather: how does a system resolve two conflicting rights? e.g, the right for you to play your stereo at 3am full-blast vs. the right for me to have a good night's sleep vs. the right for me to put a gun to your forehead if you don't turn it down.
AMD market's a typical "optimistic" spec. Where have you been? AMD's marketing trickery w.r.t. power numbers has been exposed on/. for some time. Both sides have their own "optimal" conditions.
I refer you to this thread to see how AMD markets power. They use barrels of hype.
Slashdot Mirror
using your analogy, when you use a rest stop on the highway, and you see the retarded commentary on the walls, does it devastate you? emotionally damage you? no. you just roll your eyes and forget about it 10 seconds later. so why would the snarky juvenile idiocy damage you on the internet?
What if an anonymous blog entry appeared on some forum with a WMV of you rubbing one out on the jon to a copy of your moms Sears & Roebuck maternity lingerie catalog? (apologies to Sam Kinneson for stealing this) Now I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that you'd have a freaking breakdown if the image went viral and hundreds of milions of people could identify you from the photo and for the rest of your life you were known by that.
I agree with most of your post, but think your cavalier "anything goes" attitude is as naive as the
the guy who thinks anonymity = town forum.
How about a 16-core CPU with 35W per core, which by the numbers above would indicate a trend downward? 16*35W=560W. Whoops!
Maybe a 32-core CPU with 20W per core? 32*20=640W. Double whoops!
Why are these all Whoops? This 32-core CPU will now replace 16 or 8 blades, which are far less efficient?
However, my point still stands: what if in five years we CANNOT buy a 50W CPU? What if Intel and AMD will be manufacturing only eight-core CPUs at the low end, with a record-breaking 15W per core? That's still 120W, which is more than today.
The entire reason for core2duo was OEM pressure. OEMs set the limits on power, not Intel/AMD. Your concern is about the desktop segment, not the server. Servers have much higher limits. Desktop is limited by noise and power delivery (a 15A breaker can only deliver so much, and too many fans makes people not buy your product). Unless every citizen in the USA (or whatever country you are in) upgrades their home wiring to higher amperage rating, and goes slightly deaf, IMHO you have nothing to worry about, OEMs will always put the kibosh on 100W+ volume SKUs.
Your numbers need correcting. First, this is platform power, which includes a lot more than CPU (the memory subsystem can have a large impact too). Second, look at the power per core:
QX6800: 319W / 4 = 79.8 W
QuadFX: 498W / 4 = 124.5 W
V8 : 474W / 8 = 59.5 W
So your conclusion is reversed: this is the kind of trend we want for power: downward.
That is so Bard's Tale, circa 1985. :-)
One problem with your logic, OLPC is not driven by consumer market forces, hence OLPC will succeed if it is better, plain and simple.
Your complaint is just a reflection of your disappointment that the OLPC is seeming very "vaporwarish".
Actually, 4GB was the 486 and P5 limit.
In 1995 the Pentium Pro introduced 36-bit addressing and combined with windows PAE at the time, could address 64 gibibytes (yes, "gibibytes") of memory.
wiki it.
You are right, vieweing software is pointless b/c you never know what is on the machine, but your naive strategy is far from secure.
You forgot a few key bullets to name a few:
1a) Only a valid voter may vote
3a) the ballot matches the vote that is recorded internally and wasn't spoofed to the printer
4a) the storage method, accounting method, global upload, global tally are all secure
My guess is never, seeing as how the gov't still hasn't repealed the second amendment.
[puts on flame retardent suit]
What a wonderful idea for an essay, the same week as a rampage, by an Asian loner kid.
He needs a boot in the ass for being so goddamn stupid.
Then again, with millions of highschool kids in this country, at least one had to be dumb enough to write an essay like this so soon.
It's been this way since D&D was played only on paper with dice. Even with EQ2 and WoW it's still basically the same.
Not even close. If that's all D&D was to you, you missed out entirely. Leveling was not the goal, storytelling was. If you recall, it took FOREVER to level, so much so that there was no need to define rules for class such as magic users above level 10: no one would ever get there! Sure there were lots of tables to show hit statistics, but loot and XP was up to the DM: books were just guidelines. The goal was to role play, not to level grind, hence the moniker RPG.
AMEN!
Remember when dying actually meant something in an RPG?
Remember how in Wizardry, you could lose a character that you spent weeks leveling... PERMANENTLY?
Or how it took literally a week of gameplay just to get a party of 6 players to survive to level 5 in The Bard's Tale?
Or how there were no cheat codes or spoilers online, because THERE WAS NO ONLINE! (Just BBS's, and they weren't much help.)
I dunno, I agree with previous posters that 90% was crap and we fondly remember the 10% because the experiences are intermixed with childhood fun (e.g. A snow day in 7th grade == extra hours of playing Conan or Stellar 7 on the A//e to the tune of "Moving Pictures".)
But I also think it is an industry out to make money, so a lot of resources will be spent catering to the lowest common denominator.
There are games out there that resemble old-school creativity with new-school tech (I just played some Myst-like flash game that had a lot of detail, forgot the name...), but they are just harder to find. I think our shorter attention spans and disposition to expect instant gratification prevent us from finding these games when there's a quicker fix to be had via WoW or GTA...
where i work, we all have laptops and desktop LCDs, so it is possible to work with two monitors.
... hosed again.
downside is: when you switch back to mobile, all the settings are hosed, and when you reset them and switch back to desktop,
plus it is a big hassle to make sure applications pop up in the right windows, and making sure XP remembers that.
i program in linux through vnc, so i never really need more than one screen. even when i debugged device drivers, one screen was enough. when i edited tech docs, one screen was fine. so after 20+ years in the industry, i have never been satisfied with 2 monitors, and have done just fine with one.
i think the only apps that need it are animation/photo editing. otherwise, this is just about the coolness factor.
Actually, Intel put memory controller on die in 1997~2000 but never released the product. This was in response to the seg0 cost reduction effort that drove the http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,18726-page,1/art icle.html
But that was 10 years ago, so most of this audience wasn't even teenaged. Of course, embedded CPUs have been doing integration like this for 20+ years.
So by your logic, AMD ripping of ATI is OK?
/digg!
Huh.
And also by your logic, the idea of integrating chipset components is tantamount to "ripping off" because those ideas are, um, so original? I guess if you ignore 30 years of embedded design.
Huh.
And this utter lack of comprehension is now a 5/Interesting?
Oh right, this is now
Yeah, but Hawking can make an Educated Guess.
Your guess is utterly meaningless if you haven't been trained, practicing, or educated.
That's the difference.
can we have a rule: No N-Best Of Lists on /. Ever.
Maybe Intel could just buy a graphics company that already has the technology demo something in 4 months. Like AMD did, again (recall their last their two biggest wins came from acquiring NexGen's intellectual property). AMD has a habit of making money by plagiarizing the work of other smaller companies they acquire. Whereas Intel apparently buys smaller companies and loses money :) :) (er, whatever they bough and sold to Marvell for a huge loss). --ducks for cover--
When rights conflict, the law is supposed to mediate that conflict. It is arguable that playing a stereo might possibly be infringing on some right of your which you have not been able to name in a meaningful way. Shooting a person conflicts with their rights in a very well defined an drastic way. Understand?
I'll try ANOTHER example, because you're starting to catch on.
Imagine I burn my trash in my back yard. Every day. Tires, paper, wood, etc. In your world I have the right to do this because I'm not taking away anyone else's rights. But the smoke blows into your house, and you have to breath fumes all day. So you move because according to your logic, you don't have the right to complain, and i have to right to burn garbage (or blast a stereo and prevent you from getting sleep, same thing in your world). Ok, so I move too, and I move next door to you, and keep doing the same thing. You move again, I move too, etc.
You're life sucks, but too bad, because I have all the rights. So you don't have the right to be healthy, which is inhibited by my garbage burning (or stereo blasting)?
See, you can't win: my right to blast my stereo and prevent you from sleeping takes away your right to live a healthy life. Either one is not a freedom, or two freedoms are incompatible.
And you admit your misunderstanding in the last paragraph: The point is, it used to be that minimizing the amount in which this happened was considered important as freedom itself was important
That is the crux of the problem with your "freedom rulez!" view, you weasel out of responsibility except for things that you personally hold dear, and screw everyone else. Typical short sighted libertarian BS.
Heh:
Yes TDP is "selected" based on power/performance tradeoffs, but that is nothing like it being a pure marketing decision. Marketing may say that market X has max power envelope Y, but after that it's the physical requirements of the chip that dictate the cross of performance/TDP.
vs.
You're making it sound as though TDP is like AMD's model numbers, completely arbitrary, and nothing could be further from the truth.
I guess we just see the same data completely differently.
I'm fond of this movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95
100% natural filmmaking, no foley, no lights, no makeup, no sets, no post-production. Just a camera and acting.
Dogme#6 "Juline Donkey Boy" was amazing, a little tough to get used to for the first 5 minutes, but amazing.
I'm sorry, would you mind copying the part of my original post where I claimed this example defines every person who is pro-choice? Oh, I didn't say that? Now you know what a straw man argument is.
Here is your example:
"It is sick and sad that someone can have a "pro choice" bumper sticker, but not even think about the fact that they don't advocate personal freedom to choose in general, just personal freedom to make one particular choice, while they advocate taking other choices away from people."
You are claiming to know what is going on in their head and making a generalization that they take choices away from other people. Maybe that's not a straw man, but it sure is a poor argument. You invented an outcome based on your bias of said people and no facts.
This is called pro-freedom. The fact that you don't even seem to see this as an issue is exactly what I was addressing.
You are missing a key point. There are natural limits to freedom just like there are natural limits to population, or a limit to how much water you can put in a glass.
You told me to move somewhere else if I don't like your right to stay up all night with loud music. So you are taking away my rights. So I don't have the right to be left alone according to you. I don't have the freedom to get some sleep. Because if the entire planet was full of people like you, you would have effectively removed my rights and replaced them with yours.
I think you are missing the point that there is no such thing as 100% freedom. You always take away someone else's freedom in your pursuit to be free.
My gun example was perfect and you avoided it because it pokes a hole in your argument. Why don't I have the right to shoot you if you keep me up? You are physically molesting me with your stereo, why can't I do the same. Why am I less free than you? Do you not see how those two are the same, albeit extreme examples?
You are grossly idealizing freedom without realizing the practical obstacles to it. In order to exist as a society, people have to voluntarily give up some freedoms, or let them be moderated by mutually agreed upon rules and laws.
Tell me where I'm wrong, I'm game for a debate.
TDP is about the physical requirements to transfer power away from the silicon. If they bullshit their TDP numbers, then the HSF the OEMs use will be inadequate, and they will absolutely notice this in the form of chips failing from overheating.
Half wrong.
If they lowball TDP, the OEM designs an inadequate solution, and both Intel and AMD cpus will throttle more, reducing performance. If the throttle cannot cool the CPU, the catastrophic diode triggers, halting the CPU.
TDP is selected based on performance/cooling cost tradeoff, which is entirely based on the distribution of power of typical applications, as both companies have admitted in print. This can be fudged both for bragging rights, and to reduce OEM thermal solution cost, but it cannot be set so low as to impair performance. Sure, AMD/Intel could spec 5W TDP, the OEM would design a 5W solution, and the CPU would run as fast as a 200 MHz CPU because it throttles all the time. See?
if you don't know what IDD_max is then I guess it's unexplained
IDD_max is y-coordinate right-hand endpoint of the VRM load-line specification. The X coordinate is the Vcc at that Imax, which is a Vmin that affects writability of storage or sequential elements. Instantaneous drops are handled by caps on the board and on the die. If the VRM cannot supply this voltage, the circuits cannot switch. How does this relate to TDP? IDD_max is TDP / Voltage. TDP comes first, then IDD_max is spec'd. There is no need to spec a beefier VRM requirement if the CPU will not exceed a particular power threshold, which is TDP.
Your point is that AMD spec's MAX power and Intel does not, so AMD is more honest. This is factually incorrect, as they both us TDP numbers. Hopefully I've convinced you, as I am clearly neither an AMD or Intel fanboy, I just hate people spreading misinformation.
First of all, you don't even understand the terms:
2 ,00.asp
e _papers_and_tech_docs/30430.pdf
TDP = Thermal Design Power. Not "total". Get your facts right.
You are totally wrong about TDP: TDP is entirely a marketing construct. It is based on a typical scenario. They choose a point arbitrarily that doesn't cause too much perf. loss from PowerNow!, but still reduces thermal solution cost. It's market pressure.
Second: RTFA.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,206825
"AMD's argument goes like this: Modern desktop and notebook processors constantly scale up and down between full speed and an idle state, which AMD has branded "Cool 'n' Quiet". At a given time, pushed to full load by an application, AMD's chips run hotter and consume more power. But across a typical computing day--where a user might check his email or surf the Web--the processor idles more often then not. At idle, AMD's 90nm Athlon 64 X2 consumes 7.5 watts. A 35-watt, 65-nm chip will idle at 3.8 watts, AMD said. By comparison, the 65nm Core 2 Duo idles at 14.3 watts."
Marketing drones on the prowl. AMD took Intel's spec, changed what is considered a "typical" day, and said, "Hey look, we win!!!" I'm sure Intel will respond in kind.
AMD does not give MAX, if they did, they wouldn't be able to sell their products to any platform vendor. No one has spec'd MAX since pre 1GHz days.
Repeat after me: AMD DOES NOT SPEC MAX POWER. AMD DOES NOT SPEC MAX POWER. AMD DOES NOT SPEC MAX POWER>
Don't believe me? Here is their POWER THERMAL DATA SHEET, and it only specs TDP.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/whit
PowerNow! defines TDP as the max power of the CPU under TDP conditions. There's the rib. TDP conditions (see page 83 of aforementioned documents) are not explained, "please see your FAE for details." But we already know the answer to that.
Intel and AMD both spec to their own versions of what TDP means. Been that way since the 100W+ CPU appeared on the market.
It is sick and sad that someone can have a "pro choice" bumper sticker, but not even think about the fact that they don't advocate personal freedom to choose in general, just personal freedom to make one particular choice
It's sick and sad when people make straw-man arguments to defend a weak position about generalization of rights and what is a "right".
I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-red-meat. (Bet that hurts your head.) But I don't claim my one anecdotal position defines every pro-choice person.
Maybe you're missing the point: the hypothetical pro-choicers pro-animal-rights people you despise have generalized the notion of rights much more broadly than your mind can handle. If you listen to animal rights groups, they believe the same rights we afford humans we should extend to animals.
And there are even anti-abortion pro-animal-rights supporters, I just hope that fact doesn't make your head explode.
I think what you are having trouble understanding is not some kind of hypocrisy, but rather: how does a system resolve two conflicting rights? e.g, the right for you to play your stereo at 3am full-blast vs. the right for me to have a good night's sleep vs. the right for me to put a gun to your forehead if you don't turn it down.
AMD market's a typical "optimistic" spec. Where have you been? AMD's marketing trickery w.r.t. power numbers has been exposed on /. for some time. Both sides have their own "optimal" conditions.
1 20864
I refer you to this thread to see how AMD markets power. They use barrels of hype.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210098&cid=17