and see how the new AMD chip compares. I assure you the i7 won't need to draw 220W to do this. Or let's look at performance per watt at normal frequencies where, if the AMD processor really does match a 4770K in raw perf, that will mean the Intel processor will be about 2.5x better on perf / watt. As some people have mentioned, IBM routinely clocks Power architecture processors into the 4-5GHz range AND they draw several hundred watts each. If you think that's progress, I suggest you'll want to reconsider when you see the net throughput of a dense array of low-wattage Haswells cranking out aggregate SPECcpu numbers far beyond an IBM Power 7+ processor with the same total number of watts the IBM socket draws.
..but probably not because they want to come and make contact for it's own sake. For all we know collecting industrial-level civilizations is a hobby, like owning ant farms or exotic plant gardens. Just because they want to come here doesn't mean they will likely see us as equals. Could be creatures at our level are prized pets and one day Earth will be depopulated by Spore-like ships grabbing product for sale to real civilizations
So opinions Microsoft is forming comes from "people using Windows 8 who have chosen to join the company's 'customer experience improvement program.' ". Isn't that automatically pre-sorting for the sycophants that love Win 8 or Microsoft in general? I hate these kind of programs and I think most users do too, so those who have signed up are already ready to selflessly help the folks in Redmond. I expect that means their tolerance for bad behavior is higher, their inclination to like the Win 8 UI starts strong and their willingness to be patient with fixes will be extraordinarily deep. If Microsoft thinks that's representative sample of the user population, they need to revisit their methodology. (Or move to the assumption that Win 8 is a niche OS with a small, cult following). If Microsoft sincerely wanted to find out what's wrong and what's right with Win 8, they would PAY random users to spend the time to give them honest impressions about the user experience. Anyone willing to do that work for nothing has drunk way to much Win 8 Kool-Aid already.
Let me get this straight... PC enthusiasts would move from an architecture that has been socketed for years but that might be not be socketed at some point in 2016 or so to move to a architecture that is NEVER offered as a separately sold, socketed part, BECAUSE you like a socketed cpu? Is that what the poster is suggesting PC enthusiasts would do?
The #1 problem with the arrangement is the requirement for whole disk encryption on the company laptop. It really slows it down. Performance is always worse on a laptop but it's dismal with disk encryption.
Your company has shitty laptops, shitty encryption software, or both.
Yes, get disk-encryption software that supports the AES-NI hardware based crypto that are built into the last 3 generations of Intel Core processors (if you're driving two screens off your laptop, you probably have one of these). Should make your drive encryption much less painful.
I assume Apple had been paying Google something for Google maps which was replaced by Apple maps. Depending how you wan to amortize the R&D, that was a unit BoM savings if Google has been getting a per unit fee.
So, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) would prevent ARM from licensing a CPU reference design to Apple if Apple was only going to allow IOS to run on it?
Actually Apple hasn't used Atoms because Apple severely bifurcates the performance levels of their closed IOS (iPhone. iPad) ecosystem from that of the much faster OS/X-based Intel Core i-based Mac products. Atom actually outperforms most ARM procs but is much less powerful than the full out-of-order Core architecture cpus so it exists in a middle ground where Apple doesn't choose to have a product today. As performance requirements for phone/pad devices rise, Apple may wind up choosing to use x86 Atom esp if they bring OS/X OS components downward into that space. Atom could run OS/X (or IOS) nicely if Apple wanted it to.
If something sounds stupid, don't you think you should question the premise that the stupid thing happened? Intel did not say what the poster says it did
Most published technical data esp about processors is OS agnostic (has to do with platform design considerations) The info is there if you want to write software support
The article grossly misrepresents Intel's position. Win 8 is a big marketing and product support target. NOBODY at Intel is stopping anyone from building a Linux distro for Clover Trail and in fact, there is a ton of Intel kernel and driver code that could be used. Don't confuse lack of joint marketing a la Win 8 launches with technical reality
Throughout the recent history of the last couple of decades of tech IPOs, the story has been that Wall Street underwriters screw the founders, programmers and other stockholders of the company that's going public by forcing them to UNDERVALUE the stock tremendously so the underwriters can give a free but valuable gift to their best customers who get in at the cheap IPO price, and flip the stock for a quick painless gain when the undervalued stock pops on first day of public trading. This basically cheats the original shareholders by giving them less than they should have gotten if the stock was priced fairly. This time, the tables were turned as the nerds managed to screw Wall Street, by hypnotizing the underwritersinto setting the IPO price way too high thereby screwing the favored investors instead of the tech company. It was so satisfying to see the 'gift'' that the underwriters gave their best buddies come back to bite those greedy weasels who got a price crash instead of the quick pop and sellout. Actually some of those let into the IPO (if they managed to get the broken Nasdaq to execute for them on that day) DID manage to flip FB and so a lot of the stupid investors were the second wave that mindlessly bought into the stock on the first day at close to the IPO price then watched it slide from there. As others have noted, FB's PE is outrageously high and there's was and is no obvious reason why it's going to be become very profitable (Google, by comparison, certainly DID have a real revenue model when they IPO'd). The problem is that there is a lot more money sloshing around in in the pockets of the US wealthy than brains in their heads.
In Canada, (and presumably the rest of the British Commonwealth) Benedict Arnold IS a national hero. (He's a traitor only in the US). So those people should regard Miguel as a hero? (Gotta internationalize those metaphors)
If it's a toll road and you have to some to a complete stop or at least slow down dramatically to pay with coins or read your transponder every few miles, you're net actual speed may not be that much higher than a 70mph road with no obstructions (depending on number and wait times at toll booths)
>>However, ARM will also move to 22nm and 20nm and that will nullify that gain. By which time Intel will be shipping 14nm and working on the next node. Grow up.
"Besides winning on performance and efficiency, the Core i7 3770K system would cost less than the cost of a six PandaBoard ES cluster setup." So a single Ivy Bridge system, which takes up much less rack space, no cluster network ports, outperforms and costs less than the ARM cluster. Is that the definition of a no-brainer?
From the post: "...running the Win RT (ARM-based ) subset version of Win 8." Clearly implies Win RT is based on Win 8, but a subset, since you cannot run legacy Win apps and is missing many other full Win 8 features. Full Win8 is only available in x86 version.
Slashdot Mirror
and see how the new AMD chip compares. I assure you the i7 won't need to draw 220W to do this.
Or let's look at performance per watt at normal frequencies where, if the AMD processor really does match a 4770K in raw perf, that will mean the Intel processor will be about 2.5x better on perf / watt.
As some people have mentioned, IBM routinely clocks Power architecture processors into the 4-5GHz range AND they draw several hundred watts each. If you think that's progress, I suggest you'll want to reconsider when you see the net throughput of a dense array of low-wattage Haswells cranking out aggregate SPECcpu numbers far beyond an IBM Power 7+ processor with the same total number of watts the IBM socket draws.
It's a quality of service thing
..but probably not because they want to come and make contact for it's own sake.
For all we know collecting industrial-level civilizations is a hobby, like owning ant farms or exotic plant gardens.
Just because they want to come here doesn't mean they will likely see us as equals.
Could be creatures at our level are prized pets and one day Earth will be depopulated by Spore-like ships grabbing product for sale to real civilizations
... you can't open source any system level components in an iPhone or iPad without talking to us first!
So opinions Microsoft is forming comes from "people using Windows 8 who have chosen to join the company's 'customer experience improvement program.' ". Isn't that automatically pre-sorting for the sycophants that love Win 8 or Microsoft in general? I hate these kind of programs and I think most users do too, so those who have signed up are already ready to selflessly help the folks in Redmond. I expect that means their tolerance for bad behavior is higher, their inclination to like the Win 8 UI starts strong and their willingness to be patient with fixes will be extraordinarily deep. If Microsoft thinks that's representative sample of the user population, they need to revisit their methodology. (Or move to the assumption that Win 8 is a niche OS with a small, cult following).
If Microsoft sincerely wanted to find out what's wrong and what's right with Win 8, they would PAY random users to spend the time to give them honest impressions about the user experience. Anyone willing to do that work for nothing has drunk way to much Win 8 Kool-Aid already.
Let me get this straight... PC enthusiasts would move from an architecture that has been socketed for years but that might be not be socketed at some point in 2016 or so to move to a architecture that is NEVER offered as a separately sold, socketed part, BECAUSE you like a socketed cpu?
Is that what the poster is suggesting PC enthusiasts would do?
Seems to me that genocidal (in that any intelligent life in that star systems is wiped out) deceleration qualifies.
I assume you don't own any iPads or iPhones then. The most locked down platforms on earth
The #1 problem with the arrangement is the requirement for whole disk encryption on the company laptop. It really slows it down. Performance is always worse on a laptop but it's dismal with disk encryption.
Your company has shitty laptops, shitty encryption software, or both.
Yes, get disk-encryption software that supports the AES-NI hardware based crypto that are built into the last 3 generations of Intel Core processors (if you're driving two screens off your laptop, you probably have one of these). Should make your drive encryption much less painful.
... Assuming software costs are included in the BoM, of course...
I assume Apple had been paying Google something for Google maps which was replaced by Apple maps. Depending how you wan to amortize the R&D, that was a unit BoM savings if Google has been getting a per unit fee.
So, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) would prevent ARM from licensing a CPU reference design to Apple if Apple was only going to allow IOS to run on it?
Actually SeaMicro, the microserver vendor AMD bought uses Intel Atom processors and still does. Ironic, no?
Actually Apple hasn't used Atoms because Apple severely bifurcates the performance levels of their closed IOS (iPhone. iPad) ecosystem from that of the much faster OS/X-based Intel Core i-based Mac products. Atom actually outperforms most ARM procs but is much less powerful than the full out-of-order Core architecture cpus so it exists in a middle ground where Apple doesn't choose to have a product today. As performance requirements for phone/pad devices rise, Apple may wind up choosing to use x86 Atom esp if they bring OS/X OS components downward into that space. Atom could run OS/X (or IOS) nicely if Apple wanted it to.
If something sounds stupid, don't you think you should question the premise that the stupid thing happened? Intel did not say what the poster says it did
Most published technical data esp about processors is OS agnostic (has to do with platform design considerations) The info is there if you want to write software support
The article grossly misrepresents Intel's position. Win 8 is a big marketing and product support target. NOBODY at Intel is stopping anyone from building a Linux distro for Clover Trail and in fact, there is a ton of Intel kernel and driver code that could be used. Don't confuse lack of joint marketing a la Win 8 launches with technical reality
Throughout the recent history of the last couple of decades of tech IPOs, the story has been that Wall Street underwriters screw the founders, programmers and other stockholders of the company that's going public by forcing them to UNDERVALUE the stock tremendously so the underwriters can give a free but valuable gift to their best customers who get in at the cheap IPO price, and flip the stock for a quick painless gain when the undervalued stock pops on first day of public trading. This basically cheats the original shareholders by giving them less than they should have gotten if the stock was priced fairly.
This time, the tables were turned as the nerds managed to screw Wall Street, by hypnotizing the underwritersinto setting the IPO price way too high thereby screwing the favored investors instead of the tech company. It was so satisfying to see the 'gift'' that the underwriters gave their best buddies come back to bite those greedy weasels who got a price crash instead of the quick pop and sellout. Actually some of those let into the IPO (if they managed to get the broken Nasdaq to execute for them on that day) DID manage to flip FB and so a lot of the stupid investors were the second wave that mindlessly bought into the stock on the first day at close to the IPO price then watched it slide from there.
As others have noted, FB's PE is outrageously high and there's was and is no obvious reason why it's going to be become very profitable (Google, by comparison, certainly DID have a real revenue model when they IPO'd). The problem is that there is a lot more money sloshing around in in the pockets of the US wealthy than brains in their heads.
In Canada, (and presumably the rest of the British Commonwealth) Benedict Arnold IS a national hero. (He's a traitor only in the US).
So those people should regard Miguel as a hero?
(Gotta internationalize those metaphors)
If it's a toll road and you have to some to a complete stop or at least slow down dramatically to pay with coins or read your transponder every few miles, you're net actual speed may not be that much higher than a 70mph road with no obstructions (depending on number and wait times at toll booths)
>>However, ARM will also move to 22nm and 20nm and that will nullify that gain.
By which time Intel will be shipping 14nm and working on the next node.
Grow up.
Now what WOULD BE interesting is a cluster of NUCs with Ivy Bridge Core i3s
"Besides winning on performance and efficiency, the Core i7 3770K system would cost less than the cost of a six PandaBoard ES cluster setup."
So a single Ivy Bridge system, which takes up much less rack space, no cluster network ports, outperforms and costs less than the ARM cluster. Is that the definition of a no-brainer?
From the post: "...running the Win RT (ARM-based ) subset version of Win 8."
Clearly implies Win RT is based on Win 8, but a subset, since you cannot run legacy Win apps and is missing many other full Win 8 features.
Full Win8 is only available in x86 version.