Maybe it is just me, but it seems like AMD has been struggling for some time to increase the clock speed, but Intel has been jacking their speeds up at will. AMD's little trick with adding the 9th layer has bought them some time, but Intel plans to release a 3 GHz P4 by the end of the year.
Memory bandwidth is still what is killing AMD. Intel's 533 MHz FSB (well, quad pumped 133 MHz) helps them out a lot.
Reading the tomshardware review, I don't see this as a big advantage for AMD.
- The p4 2.5 GHz beat the Athlon XP 2600 in over half of the tests - The fastest P4 is cheaper than the new Athlon 2600 (???- when is the last time we saw that?), and that is before Intel's price cuts they announced for later this month - The new AMD 2600 won't be available to customers for another month or so - Intel is releasing the 2.8 GHz P4 next week
-Intel chairs the EUV (extreme ultra-violet) lithography consortium -MOS, HMOS, CHMOS, and CMOS processes were all developed by Intel -Nitrided gate oxide technology (solve the hot electron effect) -Clock multiplying (integrating a Phase Locked Loop on the chip) -Intel was the first to use 300 mm wafers and the 130 nm process -Intel developed the worlds fastest 20 nm transistor in 2001
USB was designed as a low cost replacement for legacy ports, and it has been very successful at that. It wasn't until USB 2.0 that it was designed to compete directly with Firewire. And the PCI bus beat out several other replacements of the ISA bus (VESA local bus anyone?). I would call any technology that is used as widespread as the PCI bus and has remained competitive for over 10 years a significant contribution.
I don't think he missed the announcements- I think you are reading waaaaay to far into them.
Microsoft: We would like to create a trusted computing platform. We will call it Palladium.
You: AHHHHHHH! How dare you control my computer and prevent me from running Linux!
The strength of Microsoft's operating systems are the huge amounts of software available and the ease of developing applications that are compatible across all versions of Windows. Microsoft will not restrict what software can run, they will only restrict how much damage software that you do not trust can do.
And I think it is absurd to imply that hardware manufacturers would ever restrict their hardware to only work with Microsoft. That is just bad business. Hardware manufacturers are out to make as much money as possible- not to consort with the evil empire in plans to control your content.
From everything I have read, Palladium will be a hardware feature that must be enabled by software. If the software does not enable it, thats ok. You just don't have the security features enabled.
I know, I know, you are not supposed to feed the trolls, but...
How about: - The world's first microprocessor (the 4004 in 1971) - The world's first general purpose microprocessor (the 8080 in 1974) - The PCI bus - USB - The ethernet standard (along with Xerox and DEC) - The first math-coprocessor (the 8087 in 1976) that was used as the basis for the IEEE floating point standard in 1985
And if you look at the hot technologies today, Intel is involved in most of them too (3GIO, SATA, etc).
Look at rule 15.1- as long as you are not using an external device (like a calculator or even an abacus), it is not cheating. Now if you try to argue that your brain is an electrical device there is no hope left for you.
What? How is it unfair advantage? Is Tiger Woods cheating by developing his skills so he can win more money? Did Michael Jordan have an unfair advantage by using his 36" vertical leap?
Come on- you know that you have been beat when you resort to arguments like "Your brain didn't physically place the bet."
Because its software compatible with PATA drives, it uses the same interrupt solutions as PATA controllers. In legacy mode, it will use IRQ 14 and 15 (and be limited to 4 devices), and in native mode all devices will share a PCI interrupt (like PIRQC) that can be routed whereever you want. Each drive does not need its own interrupt.
Yes- people abuse Moore's law quite often. If you read a lot of tech publications, it might seem like Moore's law means that everything in your computer gets twice as fast, costs half as much, runs twice as cool, and gets twice as sexy every 18 months. Increasing the number of transistors on a die can contribute to those, but thats not what Moore's law is about.
I'm not sure what you are looking at. Memory sticks are sold by several manufacturers at prices comparable to CompactFlash (which is also a "proprietary" standard). Several companies (including Pioneer off the top of my head) sell devices that use memory sticks. A quick stroll over to memorystick.org will give you all of the specifications of the memory stick that you would want (electrical, physical format, file system, etc).
And what absudrly expensive computer expansion components are you talking about? Aside from the components that proprietary by nature (like docking stations for laptops), you can upgrade Sony computers with any industry standard component.
I don't see Sony's approach any worse or more proprietary than most other companies out there (including Casio).
When I lived in Germany, I remember several meals in the middle of summer where no drinks were served. It was torture at first, but you get used to it.
No, Joe Utah is picking up a copy of a video, bringing it to a store that offers an editing service, and keeping his edited copy. Nobody is selling edited movies- they are offering an service to edit the videos that people bring in.
If "computer speak" is also rooted in Latin, then it is either viruses or viri. Who knows where the second 'i' in virii came from. People just pulled that out of the air.
Itanium is not competing with Hammer or any other chip from AMD. It would make no sense for Intel to reduce the price of Itanium to less than an unrelated product.
Re:Pointers required
on
Think Python
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think it's rather silly to teach Computer Science with a specific programming language at all. Computer Science is not about teaching people how to program.
To me, Computer Science is a very cool blend of: - Discrete mathematics - Computation theory - Linguistics - Complexity theory - Logic - Probability
None of these rely on programming at all, let alone a specific language or whether that language has pointers or not. Programming is only an application of Computer Science.
You gave example of an AI class- to me, the core of AI is learning about first-order logic and predicate calculus, searching and graph traversal heuristics, reasoning, and natural language processing. I know this list isn't complete, but the point is that these concepts are for the most part independent of programming. Sure, you can start off by teaching somebody a specific implementation in Lisp or Prolog, but then they only know program AI in Lisp instead of how to apply AI concepts in any setting.
Value is a reason many people cite, but the difference is not that much.
Example: According to Toms Hardware, the Athlon XP 2200+ performs just about as well as the P4 2.2 GHz (which is why AMD choose to name it the 2200). In a few of the benchmarks, it outperforms the 2.2 GHz, but mostly it is right on par. Now, comparing the latest prices (according to pricewatch), the AMD is about $210 and the P4 is about $226 (a whopping $16 difference).
What about the cost of the entire platform, you might ask? Look at the large OEMs- similarly equipped Intel P4 2.2 GHz PCs are usually within $50 of AMD XP 2200+ PCs. AMDs are cheaper, but its really not that big of a difference.
Granted this comparison doesnt scale to the middle of the road processors (the 1.6 GHz, XP 1600+), but the price difference from OEMs is much less pronounced. And Intel just announced a 63% price cut the 2.5 GHz when they release the 2.8 GHz later this year.
You are kidding, right? When I was developing applications in Delphi, we were going out of our way to avoid the BDE. It was a pain to make sure that the users had the proper BDE configuration (some wierd BDE setting getting changed was the cause of 75% of our database problems). Plus the BDE initialization added at least 10 seconds to the program startup time. We were MUCH happier when we went with the native drivers and some direct access components.
I don't see it as being underhanded. Intel and HP have been very open about the new architecture. They want to move away from x86 (right now, in the server market at least). They have been saying that since Itanium was announced.
AMD processors are more reliable? What, did you have more system crashes on Intel cpus? Did you diagnose more crashes on your Intel system as CPU failures rather than software problems? Have you had any Intel cpu just quit working on you?
Lets remember the video on Toms Hardware with the Athlon burning up within seconds of loosing its cooling system. AMD did address the problem, but they put a large amount of the burdon on mobo designers. The Athlon uses a full 10 watts more than the P4.
There may be valid reasons why somebody would choose an AMD processor over Intel, but reliability isn't one of them. And for the past 6 months, neither is performance.
Whats probably best is to have a hybrid 32/64 chip for a little while
This is exactly why Intel built x86 compatibility into Itanium. From what I understand, this compatibility will be removed in future Itanium versions once the user base is weaned from the crappy x86 code.
Whoa- I think you missed the point of this article. They didnt actually want a serious answer- they were only giving some nerds a chance to make some irrelevant Microsoft jokes.
Why does everybody think we need new legislation to solve our accounting problems. We don't have a shortage of laws- there are hundreds of tax and accounting laws on the books already. Running out and making new laws doesnt help at all- we need to enforce our existing ones.
This is like saying "There have been several girls abducted lately. We need to hurry up and pass some new laws with some actual teeth to them so people will stop killing little girls." Thats crap!
I think the difference is that while interstate travel is a right, interstate travel on an airplane is not a right. By choosing an airplane as your method of interstate travel, you must agree to more security conditions (because there are arguably more risks associated with air travel). This does not restrict ones right to interstate travel, though- there are always alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Toms, it is cheaper.
n xp-10.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/athlo
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like AMD has been struggling for some time to increase the clock speed, but Intel has been jacking their speeds up at will. AMD's little trick with adding the 9th layer has bought them some time, but Intel plans to release a 3 GHz P4 by the end of the year.
Memory bandwidth is still what is killing AMD. Intel's 533 MHz FSB (well, quad pumped 133 MHz) helps them out a lot.
Well, if you read the tomshardware review, you might notice that the 2.5 GHz P4 beat the new Athlons in over half of the tests.
What really surprized me was that the P4 2.5 GHz is cheaper than the Athlon 2600.
Reading the tomshardware review, I don't see this as a big advantage for AMD.
- The p4 2.5 GHz beat the Athlon XP 2600 in over half of the tests
- The fastest P4 is cheaper than the new Athlon 2600 (???- when is the last time we saw that?), and that is before Intel's price cuts they announced for later this month
- The new AMD 2600 won't be available to customers for another month or so
- Intel is releasing the 2.8 GHz P4 next week
Ok- you want chip fabrication technologies?
-Intel chairs the EUV (extreme ultra-violet) lithography consortium
-MOS, HMOS, CHMOS, and CMOS processes were all developed by Intel
-Nitrided gate oxide technology (solve the hot electron effect)
-Clock multiplying (integrating a Phase Locked Loop on the chip)
-Intel was the first to use 300 mm wafers and the 130 nm process
-Intel developed the worlds fastest 20 nm transistor in 2001
USB was designed as a low cost replacement for legacy ports, and it has been very successful at that. It wasn't until USB 2.0 that it was designed to compete directly with Firewire. And the PCI bus beat out several other replacements of the ISA bus (VESA local bus anyone?). I would call any technology that is used as widespread as the PCI bus and has remained competitive for over 10 years a significant contribution.
I don't think he missed the announcements- I think you are reading waaaaay to far into them.
Microsoft: We would like to create a trusted computing platform. We will call it Palladium.
You: AHHHHHHH! How dare you control my computer and prevent me from running Linux!
The strength of Microsoft's operating systems are the huge amounts of software available and the ease of developing applications that are compatible across all versions of Windows. Microsoft will not restrict what software can run, they will only restrict how much damage software that you do not trust can do.
And I think it is absurd to imply that hardware manufacturers would ever restrict their hardware to only work with Microsoft. That is just bad business. Hardware manufacturers are out to make as much money as possible- not to consort with the evil empire in plans to control your content.
From everything I have read, Palladium will be a hardware feature that must be enabled by software. If the software does not enable it, thats ok. You just don't have the security features enabled.
I know, I know, you are not supposed to feed the trolls, but...
How about:
- The world's first microprocessor (the 4004 in 1971)
- The world's first general purpose microprocessor (the 8080 in 1974)
- The PCI bus
- USB
- The ethernet standard (along with Xerox and DEC)
- The first math-coprocessor (the 8087 in 1976) that was used as the basis for the IEEE floating point standard in 1985
And if you look at the hot technologies today, Intel is involved in most of them too (3GIO, SATA, etc).
Ok- here is an explaination of how it is not cheating (according to the 1992 Casino Control Act in Nevada):
c k-basics-casino-rules.html
http://www.online-blackjack-authority.com/blackja
Look at rule 15.1- as long as you are not using an external device (like a calculator or even an abacus), it is not cheating. Now if you try to argue that your brain is an electrical device there is no hope left for you.
What? How is it unfair advantage? Is Tiger Woods cheating by developing his skills so he can win more money? Did Michael Jordan have an unfair advantage by using his 36" vertical leap?
Come on- you know that you have been beat when you resort to arguments like "Your brain didn't physically place the bet."
Because its software compatible with PATA drives, it uses the same interrupt solutions as PATA controllers. In legacy mode, it will use IRQ 14 and 15 (and be limited to 4 devices), and in native mode all devices will share a PCI interrupt (like PIRQC) that can be routed whereever you want. Each drive does not need its own interrupt.
Yes- people abuse Moore's law quite often. If you read a lot of tech publications, it might seem like Moore's law means that everything in your computer gets twice as fast, costs half as much, runs twice as cool, and gets twice as sexy every 18 months. Increasing the number of transistors on a die can contribute to those, but thats not what Moore's law is about.
I'm not sure what you are looking at. Memory sticks are sold by several manufacturers at prices comparable to CompactFlash (which is also a "proprietary" standard). Several companies (including Pioneer off the top of my head) sell devices that use memory sticks. A quick stroll over to memorystick.org will give you all of the specifications of the memory stick that you would want (electrical, physical format, file system, etc).
And what absudrly expensive computer expansion components are you talking about? Aside from the components that proprietary by nature (like docking stations for laptops), you can upgrade Sony computers with any industry standard component.
I don't see Sony's approach any worse or more proprietary than most other companies out there (including Casio).
When I lived in Germany, I remember several meals in the middle of summer where no drinks were served. It was torture at first, but you get used to it.
No, Joe Utah is picking up a copy of a video, bringing it to a store that offers an editing service, and keeping his edited copy. Nobody is selling edited movies- they are offering an service to edit the videos that people bring in.
If "computer speak" is also rooted in Latin, then it is either viruses or viri. Who knows where the second 'i' in virii came from. People just pulled that out of the air.
This tells how the postman almost offered a service that had similarities with modern day e-mail.
*sigh*
Itanium is not competing with Hammer or any other chip from AMD. It would make no sense for Intel to reduce the price of Itanium to less than an unrelated product.
I think it's rather silly to teach Computer Science with a specific programming language at all. Computer Science is not about teaching people how to program.
To me, Computer Science is a very cool blend of:
- Discrete mathematics
- Computation theory
- Linguistics
- Complexity theory
- Logic
- Probability
None of these rely on programming at all, let alone a specific language or whether that language has pointers or not. Programming is only an application of Computer Science.
You gave example of an AI class- to me, the core of AI is learning about first-order logic and predicate calculus, searching and graph traversal heuristics, reasoning, and natural language processing. I know this list isn't complete, but the point is that these concepts are for the most part independent of programming. Sure, you can start off by teaching somebody a specific implementation in Lisp or Prolog, but then they only know program AI in Lisp instead of how to apply AI concepts in any setting.
Value is a reason many people cite, but the difference is not that much.
Example: According to Toms Hardware, the Athlon XP 2200+ performs just about as well as the P4 2.2 GHz (which is why AMD choose to name it the 2200). In a few of the benchmarks, it outperforms the 2.2 GHz, but mostly it is right on par. Now, comparing the latest prices (according to pricewatch), the AMD is about $210 and the P4 is about $226 (a whopping $16 difference).
What about the cost of the entire platform, you might ask? Look at the large OEMs- similarly equipped Intel P4 2.2 GHz PCs are usually within $50 of AMD XP 2200+ PCs. AMDs are cheaper, but its really not that big of a difference.
Granted this comparison doesnt scale to the middle of the road processors (the 1.6 GHz, XP 1600+), but the price difference from OEMs is much less pronounced. And Intel just announced a 63% price cut the 2.5 GHz when they release the 2.8 GHz later this year.
You are kidding, right? When I was developing applications in Delphi, we were going out of our way to avoid the BDE. It was a pain to make sure that the users had the proper BDE configuration (some wierd BDE setting getting changed was the cause of 75% of our database problems). Plus the BDE initialization added at least 10 seconds to the program startup time. We were MUCH happier when we went with the native drivers and some direct access components.
I don't see it as being underhanded. Intel and HP have been very open about the new architecture. They want to move away from x86 (right now, in the server market at least). They have been saying that since Itanium was announced.
AMD processors are more reliable? What, did you have more system crashes on Intel cpus? Did you diagnose more crashes on your Intel system as CPU failures rather than software problems? Have you had any Intel cpu just quit working on you?
Lets remember the video on Toms Hardware with the Athlon burning up within seconds of loosing its cooling system. AMD did address the problem, but they put a large amount of the burdon on mobo designers. The Athlon uses a full 10 watts more than the P4.
There may be valid reasons why somebody would choose an AMD processor over Intel, but reliability isn't one of them. And for the past 6 months, neither is performance.
Whats probably best is to have a hybrid 32/64 chip for a little while
This is exactly why Intel built x86 compatibility into Itanium. From what I understand, this compatibility will be removed in future Itanium versions once the user base is weaned from the crappy x86 code.
Whoa- I think you missed the point of this article. They didnt actually want a serious answer- they were only giving some nerds a chance to make some irrelevant Microsoft jokes.
Why does everybody think we need new legislation to solve our accounting problems. We don't have a shortage of laws- there are hundreds of tax and accounting laws on the books already. Running out and making new laws doesnt help at all- we need to enforce our existing ones.
This is like saying "There have been several girls abducted lately. We need to hurry up and pass some new laws with some actual teeth to them so people will stop killing little girls." Thats crap!
I think the difference is that while interstate travel is a right, interstate travel on an airplane is not a right. By choosing an airplane as your method of interstate travel, you must agree to more security conditions (because there are arguably more risks associated with air travel). This does not restrict ones right to interstate travel, though- there are always alternatives.