Not quite the same thing. No one ever tells the police where the mafia are hiding out in Italy, nor do they ever stop paying for the "services" the mafia provide. Doesn't mean they're supportive of the mafia.
You do realise that they'll not simply write an API that asks "what version of the software are we on" but instead has the game issue a challenge, have the OS compute a response using a private key (quite possibly by contacting microsoft's servers in between), and checks the response using a public key.
Believing that the issue no longer exists because one person cracks the first implementation is foolhardy at best, and idiotic at worst.
All it takes is for MS to bump the minimum software version required for new games, or add a critical new feature that everyone wants and suddenly you need to updated, and get into the never ending war of jailbreaking and patching. By buying a console with the expectation of it being regularly jailbroken, all you guarantee is that you end up unable to keep up with the latest software update, and hence the latest games.
I never claimed this was a practical approach to building such a craft, only that it was a good thought experiment that demonstrated that it's an entirely reasonable concept to travel downwind faster than the wind.
The only thing that makes it not a sailing boat is that I happened to use land to make the engineering easier to describe. We can trivially change it back into a sailing boat by saying "it's a really really wide catamaran, and the mast is attached to a travelling base.
Now imagine said sailing boat on land, with wheels that have no more friction than the boat in water.
Now imagine said sailing "boat" attached to a long, beam on wheels, able to travel across that beam on a guide rail.
Now you have a complete system that is travelling down wind faster than the wind, by having an element on the top of it beating backwards and forwards on a broad reach and jibing at each end.
And that's the point of the blackbird –while the whole is travelling downwind, individual parts are not. You can similarly see a boat travelling on a series of broad reaches interspaced with jibes to be part of a large system which is travelling directly downwind faster than the wind.
An ISO level corresponds to a specific light sensitivity level, so no, it won't mean you can use a low ISO in the dark. It would (if the article were true) mean that you could use higher ISOs without getting as much noise.
In tests, it has proved to be 1,000 times more sensitive to light than existing complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) or charge-coupled device (CCD) camera sensors in addition to operating at much lower voltages, consequently using 10 times less energy.
Wrong. We discuss it. But when we start talking about price you people go back to this. Exactly this.
The i7-4770 costs 4+ times as much (currently if you pre-order) as the most expensive AMD A10 chip, which also arent even the fastest AMD chips available.
i7 4770k –$339 A10 5800k - $129.99 So we're looking at a chip that's 2.6 times the price, but 4 times the CPU performance.
Price was brought up, so you responded by not mentioning price at all, and proceeded to compare the highest performing Intel chip ever with a mid-range AMD part.
No, the assertion that the intel chip was 4 times more expensive was brought up, and neglected to mention the context that the intel chip was also 4 times faster (and also greatly exaggerated the 2.6 times price). I merely noted that there's a reason for the intel chip being significantly more expensive – that it's significantly faster.
You're right, the AMD chip is indeed a mid range chip, and it should never even have been compared to the i7. Unfortunately, AMD has no chip that can reasonably be compared to the i7, so all the review sites chose the fastest CPU AMD has on offer that includes an IGP. If you want to push it a bit further, lets ignore the IGP completely, and take the fastest desktop chip AMD has on offer: FX 8350 –$199.99 i7 4770k –$339 So, we're at 1.9 times the price, and around 1.8 times the performance (see here). But, of course, we all know that price increases exponentially with performance when it comes to high end processors, so lets just scale back that intel part a bit: FX 8350 –$199.99 i5 4670 –$213 So now we're at 1.06 times the price (effectively equal), but about 1.5 times the performance (see here). If you really want to make the price war completely in intel's favour, then look at FX 8350 –$199.99 i5 4570 - $192 Unfortunately Anand do not list this in their benchmarks, but it's the exact same die as the 4670, just clocked 6% lower, so we can extrapolate the result, and say that this i5 will be around 1.4 times the speed of the FX 8350 Oh, and by the way, it throws in a decent IGP, while the FX 8350 does not. It also consumes only 67% of the power under load, and that's including the IGP.
So conclusion. Haswell is pretty effectively blowing AMD out of the water. The A10 5800 remains reasonably unscathed only because Haswell i3s have not yet been released. When the i3 4220 appears, I would fully expect the A10 to lose to it in every respect in the same way as the FX 8350 loses to the i5 3570 in pretty much all ways.
AMD fanboys never want to discuss the fact that the i7 4770 is roughly 4 times faster than the A10 The only reason they're compared is because the A10 is the fastest chip with an IGP AMD ships, and the i7 is the slowest haswell out just now. By the time the i3 4220 lands, the A10 will be dead in the water.
Right, in reality intel is offering no chip that directly competes with the A10. They're currently offering the i3 3220 (ivy bridge) which is a faster CPU, but has a slower GPU. I'd imagine that there'll be a haswell variant along some time soon that's both a faster CPU, and roughly equal GPU, but it's not out right this second.
The point being that the HD 4600 is the slowest Haswell IGP. Look at the Iris 5200 instead on anandtech's benchmarks. It's a good 20-30% ahead of the A10's 7660D.
Nope, the Iris 5200 wipes the floor with the A10. You're probably referring to the low end HD 4600 in the i7 (which they put there because they expect no one buying an i7 to be using integrated graphics).
At 10 feet from a 36" screen, you can't tell the difference between DVD (576p) and 720p. At 10 feet from a 55" screen, you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. At 10 feet from a 110" screen, you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.
So, given that this monitor is less than 36", if you sit at TV viewing distances from it, no, a DVD won't look awful on it.
Sorry to tell you this, but you're not doing your job. As a network administrator, your job is to make sure that the people using the network are able to do the tasks they need for their job.
Yes BYOD means you need to be careful about what happens on the network, but it does not mean the network will instantly fall over if you, the network administrator, is even half competent. What it also means in many (most?) companies is significant productivity gains for the people using the network, and ultimately, that's why you're there – to facilitate their productivity, not to sit in your ivory tower with your pristine "perfect" network that actually doesn't do what the users need it to.
Lithography resolution and transistors per area are inversely connected, so if the lithography doesn't shrink, the number of transistors can't increase (assuming you didn't lay them out *really* lazily the first time round).
In order to get twice as many transistors in (assuming a sane layout at first), those transistors need to have half the area, and hence 1/2 the linear size, and hence we would need 13nm lithography by now to have kept up with moore's law.
How does this have anything to do with Moore's law? Moores law doesn't refer to density in any way. Especially not that of storage.
Yes it does –Moore's law says that transistor count on a chip doubles every 18 months for the same cost. Or, to put it another way, transistor size halves, or, to put it another way, process size shrinks by root two. This is an example of the process size staying exactly the same size over 18 months at no significant reduced cost. Therefore it's an example of moore's law failing.
Moore's Law applies to the number of transistors in a chip. Just because you have found an increase in performance that did follow Moore's Law for a while does not mean that Moore's Law is somehow about flash memory.
Uhhh, the article refers not at all to anything about performance. It refers to the fact that the chip is still using a 19nm process. i.e. the transistors are still 19nm on each side, and because of that, there's the same number of them. It's saying Moore's law has failed exactly because it's 18 months later and you would expect 13nm parts by now (which would have half the area, and hence pack twice as many in), for the same price.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite the same thing. No one ever tells the police where the mafia are hiding out in Italy, nor do they ever stop paying for the "services" the mafia provide. Doesn't mean they're supportive of the mafia.
You do realise that they'll not simply write an API that asks "what version of the software are we on" but instead has the game issue a challenge, have the OS compute a response using a private key (quite possibly by contacting microsoft's servers in between), and checks the response using a public key.
Believing that the issue no longer exists because one person cracks the first implementation is foolhardy at best, and idiotic at worst.
All it takes is for MS to bump the minimum software version required for new games, or add a critical new feature that everyone wants and suddenly you need to updated, and get into the never ending war of jailbreaking and patching. By buying a console with the expectation of it being regularly jailbroken, all you guarantee is that you end up unable to keep up with the latest software update, and hence the latest games.
I never claimed this was a practical approach to building such a craft, only that it was a good thought experiment that demonstrated that it's an entirely reasonable concept to travel downwind faster than the wind.
The only thing that makes it not a sailing boat is that I happened to use land to make the engineering easier to describe. We can trivially change it back into a sailing boat by saying "it's a really really wide catamaran, and the mast is attached to a travelling base.
Now imagine said sailing boat on land, with wheels that have no more friction than the boat in water.
Now imagine said sailing "boat" attached to a long, beam on wheels, able to travel across that beam on a guide rail.
Now you have a complete system that is travelling down wind faster than the wind, by having an element on the top of it beating backwards and forwards on a broad reach and jibing at each end.
And that's the point of the blackbird –while the whole is travelling downwind, individual parts are not. You can similarly see a boat travelling on a series of broad reaches interspaced with jibes to be part of a large system which is travelling directly downwind faster than the wind.
This "overpriced heater" that uses half the power of the A10-5800k, right?
An ISO level corresponds to a specific light sensitivity level, so no, it won't mean you can use a low ISO in the dark. It would (if the article were true) mean that you could use higher ISOs without getting as much noise.
FTFA
In tests, it has proved to be 1,000 times more sensitive to light than existing complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) or charge-coupled device (CCD) camera sensors in addition to operating at much lower voltages, consequently using 10 times less energy.
Do you know something the article doesn't?
Wrong. We discuss it. But when we start talking about price you people go back to this. Exactly this.
The i7-4770 costs 4+ times as much (currently if you pre-order) as the most expensive AMD A10 chip, which also arent even the fastest AMD chips available.
i7 4770k –$339
A10 5800k - $129.99
So we're looking at a chip that's 2.6 times the price, but 4 times the CPU performance.
Price was brought up, so you responded by not mentioning price at all, and proceeded to compare the highest performing Intel chip ever with a mid-range AMD part.
No, the assertion that the intel chip was 4 times more expensive was brought up, and neglected to mention the context that the intel chip was also 4 times faster (and also greatly exaggerated the 2.6 times price). I merely noted that there's a reason for the intel chip being significantly more expensive – that it's significantly faster.
You're right, the AMD chip is indeed a mid range chip, and it should never even have been compared to the i7. Unfortunately, AMD has no chip that can reasonably be compared to the i7, so all the review sites chose the fastest CPU AMD has on offer that includes an IGP. If you want to push it a bit further, lets ignore the IGP completely, and take the fastest desktop chip AMD has on offer:
FX 8350 –$199.99
i7 4770k –$339
So, we're at 1.9 times the price, and around 1.8 times the performance (see here).
But, of course, we all know that price increases exponentially with performance when it comes to high end processors, so lets just scale back that intel part a bit:
FX 8350 –$199.99
i5 4670 –$213
So now we're at 1.06 times the price (effectively equal), but about 1.5 times the performance (see here).
If you really want to make the price war completely in intel's favour, then look at
FX 8350 –$199.99
i5 4570 - $192
Unfortunately Anand do not list this in their benchmarks, but it's the exact same die as the 4670, just clocked 6% lower, so we can extrapolate the result, and say that this i5 will be around 1.4 times the speed of the FX 8350 Oh, and by the way, it throws in a decent IGP, while the FX 8350 does not. It also consumes only 67% of the power under load, and that's including the IGP.
So conclusion. Haswell is pretty effectively blowing AMD out of the water. The A10 5800 remains reasonably unscathed only because Haswell i3s have not yet been released. When the i3 4220 appears, I would fully expect the A10 to lose to it in every respect in the same way as the FX 8350 loses to the i5 3570 in pretty much all ways.
AMD fanboys never want to discuss the fact that the i7 4770 is roughly 4 times faster than the A10 The only reason they're compared is because the A10 is the fastest chip with an IGP AMD ships, and the i7 is the slowest haswell out just now. By the time the i3 4220 lands, the A10 will be dead in the water.
Right, in reality intel is offering no chip that directly competes with the A10. They're currently offering the i3 3220 (ivy bridge) which is a faster CPU, but has a slower GPU. I'd imagine that there'll be a haswell variant along some time soon that's both a faster CPU, and roughly equal GPU, but it's not out right this second.
On the other hand, the Intel CPU was 4-5 times faster than the A10 on every CPU bound benchmark ;)
The point being that the HD 4600 is the slowest Haswell IGP. Look at the Iris 5200 instead on anandtech's benchmarks. It's a good 20-30% ahead of the A10's 7660D.
Nope, the Iris 5200 wipes the floor with the A10. You're probably referring to the low end HD 4600 in the i7 (which they put there because they expect no one buying an i7 to be using integrated graphics).
The point is that having a display with 4 times as many pixels on it requires exactly as much power as 4x SSAA. So yes, it really is "that expensive".
Depends how far away you sit.
At 10 feet from a 36" screen, you can't tell the difference between DVD (576p) and 720p.
At 10 feet from a 55" screen, you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
At 10 feet from a 110" screen, you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k.
So, given that this monitor is less than 36", if you sit at TV viewing distances from it, no, a DVD won't look awful on it.
* all measurements assume normal, good eye sight.
Sorry to tell you this, but you're not doing your job. As a network administrator, your job is to make sure that the people using the network are able to do the tasks they need for their job.
Yes BYOD means you need to be careful about what happens on the network, but it does not mean the network will instantly fall over if you, the network administrator, is even half competent. What it also means in many (most?) companies is significant productivity gains for the people using the network, and ultimately, that's why you're there – to facilitate their productivity, not to sit in your ivory tower with your pristine "perfect" network that actually doesn't do what the users need it to.
Yep, slashdot ate my unicode square root symbol. Sorry.
And now it ate half my >.<
Sorry, slashdot ate the square root in there >.
Lithography resolution and transistors per area are inversely connected, so if the lithography doesn't shrink, the number of transistors can't increase (assuming you didn't lay them out *really* lazily the first time round).
In order to get twice as many transistors in (assuming a sane layout at first), those transistors need to have half the area, and hence 1/2 the linear size, and hence we would need 13nm lithography by now to have kept up with moore's law.
How does this have anything to do with Moore's law?
Moores law doesn't refer to density in any way. Especially not that of storage.
Yes it does –Moore's law says that transistor count on a chip doubles every 18 months for the same cost. Or, to put it another way, transistor size halves, or, to put it another way, process size shrinks by root two. This is an example of the process size staying exactly the same size over 18 months at no significant reduced cost. Therefore it's an example of moore's law failing.
Moore's Law applies to the number of transistors in a chip. Just because you have found an increase in performance that did follow Moore's Law for a while does not mean that Moore's Law is somehow about flash memory.
Uhhh, the article refers not at all to anything about performance. It refers to the fact that the chip is still using a 19nm process. i.e. the transistors are still 19nm on each side, and because of that, there's the same number of them. It's saying Moore's law has failed exactly because it's 18 months later and you would expect 13nm parts by now (which would have half the area, and hence pack twice as many in), for the same price.