Take a closer look at the linked image. The two top colums are CELL. Not RSX, CELL.
And the theoretical bandwidth numbers listed for CELL to main memory are those of the direct XDR interface. You'll note that the RSX has much lower numbers because it accesses main memory through a bridge bus (much like a graphics card on PCIe).
On the Cell, there is only one thing local memory can mean, and that is the local memory of each SPE.
NOTE: this can be a serious issue, because each SPE MUST read instructions and write results to the local memory. It is up to the main processor to load instructions into this memory from main memory, and to copy results from this local memory to main.
The first DVD player was available in the U.S. in early 1997. It came with virtually no competing technologies (a la HD-DVD).
Do you forget so easily? DVD defeated Divx in only 2 years, well before the release of the Playstation 2...that is how STRONG the DVD format was by the year 2000.
You are quite correct though, DVD sold the PS2. People justified the high pricetag because it was also a DVD player, and I really don't expect that to happen this time around.
Unfortunately, look at the flak that Oblivion is getting for just that. For me, it's one of the single best features of the game, and not once have I heard a cohesive reasonable argument against it, but yet a staggering number of people can't stand it.
I have to agree. Up until now, when I played an RPG, random battles would go up or down in difficulty and loot / experience as a function of geography. If you went through previous areas, it was largely boring, beause the enimes were predictably easy.
In Oblivion, it is a function of your level. If you're higher-level, it means a tougher wolf/bear/boar/bandit/etc attacks you. This isn't just increased toughness and strength, it involves improved tactics.
Since your experience is based on actual use of skills, this is great, because, not only do you boost your blade/blunt, athletics, block, light/heavy armor, sneak, you also end up using your magika, or possibly potions. After encounters, you take advantage of the mayhem to boost your precious armorer skill.
I have noticed that QUESTS don't scale up in difficulty as your level increases (or at least I've gotten that impression so far), and for this my hat's off to Bethesda. I mean, if you're having issues finishing a quest...WAIT! You can always go back later.
32" CRT HDTV's are around $500 now. Yeah it's CRT technology, but still packs a great picture that is larger than a 36" SDTV screen would show in letterbox.
But it cuts both ways. Your 16:9 widescren TV is %20 smaller than a 4:3 television when showing 4:3 content...unless you like distorted pictures.
And since the vast majority of television is still 4:3, you realize that you really need a 38" wide-screen HDTV just to get the same screen area as the 32" 4:3 TV.
This is why people don't want to "upgrade," because it often brings compromises. You either have to pay more for a larger set, or settle for a much smaller 4:3 picture, or distorted 4:3 filling a 16:9 screen.
I am not going to upgrade until the vast majority of the shows I watch are widescreen, negating this issue.
Well, my college was connected with token ring up until 2001, when they did a complete network overhaul. Maybe you got one of our transfer students:D
Apparently, my college got a great deal on token ring from IBM in the early 90s, and at the time it was plenty fast. But by the mid 90s, it was showing its age, with no upgrade path. Back when my college still had no clue how to manage their network (read: 1997, pre-Napster), it consisted of a "turbo" (16Mbit) token ring backbone with various 4Mbit and 16Mbit rings. The bridge to the internet (single T1) was 10-base T.
Since token ring cards were really fucking expensive, the college "loaned" out token ring cards to all students. Students could either shell out $300 for a token ring card and do it themselves, or drop their computers off for a few days and get a "loaner" installed. I say "loaner" because when I graduated in 2001, and the entire network was upgraded, the school sure as hell didn't want these old token ring cards back.
Then the students discovered computers, and then discovered Napster and IM. Within a year, the college upgraded to dual T1s, then a fractional T3, and finally got off their ass and designed a better network. Gigabit optical backbones, 100-base T in the rooms, upgradable to gigabit ethernet. Too bad I wasn't around to enjoy it...
I mean, when you have the mass of the Great A'Tuin on the bottom, plus the mass of 4 giant elephants in the center, and the relatively puny mass of the Discworld on top...OF COURSE the magnetic field is going to be a bit assymetrical.
Defining Computer Literacy with hard limits is about as stupid as trying to define Cultural Literacy. There's no point in trying to hit such a constantly moving target, you juet try to keep up as best you can.
When I was in jr high school (1992), we had a REQUIRED class called "Computer Literacy." It was taught in a brand-new lab full of Apple IIc machines.
Objective of the class? Half the class was training on how to use AppleWorks and design programs, and the other half was spent learning some simple programming in BASIC. I loved the class because my family was dirt-poor, and hadn't been able to justify the cost of a computer, but my exceptional performance in the class gave my family and I extra drive to save up for one. The point of classes like this should be:
1. To give everyone a shot at understanding the "basics" of computers. 2. To give students with talent in the field an opportunity to discover their potential.
I thought the class was perfectly balanced, and could be taught in a similar format even today with modern office suites and modern "simple" languages. You don't want to make the class TOO advanced, or you'll scare away the less talented students. You also don't want to make the class too dull, or you'll leave the talented students bored. Finding that balance is all you need.
but what I believe would be really handy is a graph of the price of any given component over time (with a time range of anything from three months to three years).
I'm amazed at the fact that they log 6 months of history, and offer it to the public at no charge. Most accounting firms charge through the nose for this kind of pricing trend data.
I'm guessing that CPUs have a reasonably shallow curve (since the product lifespan is longer than the typical motherboard or graphics card), but I'm not sure
In recent years, you'd be correct. The x86 CPU market has come up against a wall, because you can only parallelize scalar x86 code so much on-the-fly. Improvements in CPU architectures like Conroe now take MUCH longer to design, for less and less performace gains than in previous years. Also, the percentage megahertz gain from process improvements is also hitting a wall, which is another reason CPU prices remain stagnant.
You think the "classics" are bad? There's a reason most classes for kids to read books like "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Great Gatsby"...because there are WORSE books.
You think "The Grapes of Wrath" puts kids to sleep? Try reading through a crap-fest like "East of Eden." I think even the happiest person in the world would contemplate suicide rather than finish this book.
And how about "The Great Gatsby?" Fitzgerald can't write for crap, and later books like "Tender is the Night" only help prove that point. I couldn't read 10 pages of that without falling asleep.
Kids read the "classics" because the classics are at least READABLE. You can probably get through "Wrath" without beating your brain into a pulp out of sheer boredom, and "Gatsby" is readable tough-love story with a few beers. There are SO MANY WORSE books out there.
Then what happens when Grandma decides to order Verizon DSL so she can "email and internet" her grandkids?
Oh, I'm sorry, the installation CD with the configuration for Verizon's PPPoE network is Windows-only. I guess Grandma will have to sift through forums on how to enable PPPoE on Linux...once she comes to understand just what the hell PPPoE MEANS. If she could have used Windows, the Verizon setup CD would have taken care of all of this for her.
And once Grandma gets on the internet, and starts discovering she can't play Shockwave or Java games (yes, I know the JRE license changed...last week. it will be at least 6 more months before the results filter down), or watch wmv videos of cute children and cute kittens that her grandchildren sent her in the email. Boy, is she enjoying that new computer!
* Off-topic, but I must pick this nit: Windows XP starts up new users at 800x600...and unless Grandma is one-in-a-million, her eyes can't handle higher resolutions than that on the cheap 17" bundled monitor anyway.
The Itanium is just not as impressive as it once was, and it's rapidly being made redundant by improvfements in the x86 world. For example, your specs:
62, 99, and 130 Watts, and check out the new memory bandwidth numbers: 10.6 GB/sec.
Don't tell the real story. Yes, this is true, you can get an Itanium 2 processor that doesn't top 62w, but that requires you to purchase one of the LV line, which comes with only a 400 MHz FSB (maximum bandwidth of only 12.8 GB/s), and a maximum speed of 1.3 GHz. It is also limited to 3MB onboard cache.
See, the problem is the architecture is REALLY cache hungry, more-so than the x86 architecture, and it really needs a huge cache and high-bandwidth memory. The EPIC architecture itself has a much larger instruction size then x86 (41-bit versus [average] 24-bit). The Itanium 2 lacks a branch predictor, which means it executes both podssible directions of the branch, and this can thrash even larger caches. The Itanium 2 also doesn't support out-of-order execution, so if it encounters a cache miss, performance suffers.
Thanks to this, the Itanium, a relatively simple processor, nedds an astoundly expensive cache and high-bandwidth memory to function well. Unfortunately, this means that the 1.5-3MB cache modes will not perform NEARLY as well as their high-end 6MB or 9MB cache brothers. Have a look at these benchmarks...the 1.3 GHz, 3MB cache processor just matches the (much cheaper) 2.2 GHz Opteron in FP, the same processor available in 55w TDP. It also performs much worse than the 4MB and 6MB cache models, clock-for-clock.
For example, the 1.4 GHz Itanium 2 processor, clocked only 8% faster, has 18% better performance due to the 4MB cache. The 1.5 Ghz Itanium 2, clocked only 15% faster, has 34% better performance due to the massive 6MB cache. So, you see the sweetspot for the Itanium 2 lies somewhere in the range of 4-6MB cache. Unfortunately, these chips are only available through the (VERY expensive, and VERY power-hungry) Multi-Processor (MP) line.
Kinda makes you wonder why anyone uses Itanium anymore. The Opteron has bested the Itanium's impressive bus and memory bandwidth, not by offering higher peak bandwidth, but by providing better efficiency. Thanks to the embedded, low-latency memory controller, the Opteron gets a lot more bandwidth out of its dual-channel DDR-400 in real-world situations than the Itanium can out of its dual-channel DDR2-667.
By next year, K8L Opterons will not only offer the same peak bandwidth numbers (10.6 GB/s using DDR2-667), they will also have double the vector and floating-point power of previous Opterons. Intel's Core 2-based server parts will also kick the Itanium's ass, making the Itanium redundant. Don't you love progress?
That, and it is about TIME Microsoft released REAL OS requirements for memory, instead of their bullshit requirements...
Windows 95: 4MB minimum, 8MB recommended. Yesh, raise your hand if you actually got anything useful done on Win95 with less than 16MB, especially once the internet got popular!
Windows 98: 16MB minimum, 32MB recommended. Sure, try surfing and writing a document at the same time, and you'll be beggin for 64MB.
Windows XP: 64MB minimum, 128MB recommended, but 256MB if you don't want to pull your hair out waiting for your favorite application to swap in and out of disk cache.
512MB minimum, with 1GB recommended, and the recommened specs are actually USABLE? Now those are specs I can live with, even if they are a bit high.
As stated previously, you can run Vista with much lower specs, you just can't use Aeroglass.
All you Linux folks still think we are all stuck in the 1980s, when hardware companies were small, and most hardware was simple bit twiddling with a minimalistic software layer.
Specs back in the day were free (for the most part) because there was nothing exceptional about any one computing platform. You had many different processor platforms, many different busses, all competing for your money with very little diffeence in performance and capability. It is no surprise that developers released full specs, both to make customers happy, and to encourage other developers to improve on the platform.
But today, we have a specialized computer industry. Gone are the myriad of user-level busses...what's left is PCI, AGP and PCIe, all thoroughly-documented standards. Gone are the simple expansion cards adding new features - all the features %90 of users need can be found integrated on a small low-cost motherboard.
And what about those users who actually USE expansion cards? They get them for VERY specialized purposes - a high-speed wired or wireless interconnect. Hardware sound co-processing, or extra sound channels. High-bandwidth TV tuners or video capture cards. High-performance 3D acceleration.
Unfortunately, these specialized and powerful cards come at a price: good performance requires trade secrets, copyrighted functionality licensed from other conglomerates, and optimized drivers. Why build your own PCIe interface from scratch when CompanyX will sell you one for 3 cents per port? Why design your own lossless texture compression routine when CompanyY SPECIALIZES in it? Why reinvent the wheel interfacing to your GDDR3 memory when dozens of companies have already designed high-performance crossbar memory switches? All these features are suddenly worth good money, both in the hardware your company sells, and in the licenses.
Also, all you Linux Open-Source zealots forget one additional thing: the DRIVER is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the modern expansion card, ESPECIALLY with video cards. If the driver is not in PEAK performance, the user is more likely to notice than, say, a USB2 driver, or a network driver. For ATI and Nvidia, the driver IS the company. What if the open-source community can't meet the performance levels of closed source drivers? Then ATI and Nvidia look bad. What if the open-source community starts to think it can build a better graphics card, instead of making drivers for Nvidia and ATI, since they already know how it works?
You want to insist ATI and Nvidia share their specifications, just to please a tiny market? That's like Coke giving away their secret formula so tribes of the Amazon rainforest can make their own. You tell me how long it takes for %100 perfect knockoffs to hit the street and kill Coke's marketshare. By my last look, it takes an awful lot of time and effort just to design a RELATIVLEY SIMPLE graphics processor. Why give your potential competitors an INCREDIBLE edge?
1. It requires a bridge chip (ATI's "Rialto" or Nvidia's "HSI"). This means an additional chip on the board. the board has to be redesigned to fit the bridge chip, and the cooling solution has to be redesigned to cool the bridge chip (they get hot).
2. No major manufacturers are shipping NEW systems with AGP support, so all AGP cards are "add-in only", making the market smaller with each passing day. Thus, most AGP boards are much shorter runs than their PCIe counterparts. These people are also too cheap to upgrade to a PCIe motherboard, and just see an AGP upgrade now as a "stopgap", so manufacturers figure most AGP buyers are unwilling to pay for a high-end card. Thus, the reason there are few high-end AGP options on the market.
Exactly. There is a pricepoint for every budget, and thankfully ATI is starting to improve their pricing so they can actually offer a competitive product. S3 has also helped kick the chair out from under the bottom-end cards, bringing prices even lower.
Here are some current-generation cards worth considering for excellent price to performance ratios in their price class:
x1300, 7300 GS ($60)
s27, x1300 Pro ($80)
x1600 Pro, 7600 GS ($110)
7600 GT ($160)
x1800 XT 256MB, 7900 GT 256MB ($250-300)
Unfortunately, there are some cards to avoid:
x1600 XT: at $150, this card is beaten by the 7600 GS in many games (a $110 card!), and is completely toasted by the 7600 GT, which is only a few dollars more.
x1800 GTO: this card perfoms similarly to the 7600 GT, but costs more ($200). Enthusiasts like it because there is a possibility of unlocking 4 extra pipes and turning the card into an x1800 XL (while voiding the warranty). Most people, however, don't want to mess with such things.
Just like last time around, ATI is unwilling to compete with Nvidia in the midrange, so the 7600 GS and 7600 GT have no real competition...unless features like HDR + AA and Avivo interest you.
I used to be pretty much anti-Ipod in the past, but the lack of agility in this industry is utterly pathetic. Competitors in the DAP market these days, even big ones like Creative and Sony, just don't have the balls to do anything *CREATIVE* or *DARING*.
When the Shuffle was released, it caused a price drop around the industry. Then, instead of taking the reins, DAP makers just stuck with their current 512MB and 1GB flash players, and tried to compete on price and features.
Then Apple released the Nano, taking the (AMAZING!) step of adding a second flash chip. Why none of the other DAP makers bothered to do this, I have no clue, but it is obvious they were too afraid to stray above Apple's pricing. Unfortunately, now they're stuck with 1GB players as their high-end, while Apple offers 2GB for $50 more, and 4GB for $100 more.
Six months later, they've BARELY started catching up, and you can bet once again they'll sit on their laurels, and wait for Apple to make the next move. PISSES ME OFF, but sadly this is how the DAP industry will work until Apple starts sitting on their laurels. Well, at least we have Rockbox so you can get around Apple's mandatory database.
Yes, I have to agree, I like Jason's simple upgrade of the existing design. The drop shadows make it look cleaner, and take away from that "antiseptic white" that has plagued Slashdot for so long.
Looks very slick.
My only complaint: as mentioned in other posts, the text does not resize in IE 6.0.28. This is a CRITICAL issue, so I wouldn't give it the thumbs-up until this is fixed. Hopefully, the bugs will be dealt with.
Consider this: the kind of person (A) who already has an HDTV and (B) is a hardcore enough gamer to spend $600 for a gaming system and (C) quotes PC component prices when justifying the high cost of the PS3 is most likely (D) the kind of person who has the know-how to shop around and build their own gaming machine.
So let's revisit your prices.
A top of the line graphics card costs $500-600.
The "top-of-the-line" graphics card in the PS3 is a cross between a 7900 GT (similar pixel fillrate) and a 7600 GT (same memory bandwidth). You can purchase a 7600 GT and get a similar quality experience for $180, or blow away the PS3 for $300 with a 7900 GT.
A top of the line mobo for $120-$180
The motherboard doesn't cost much either, if you know what to look for. I picked up an ASUS A8N5X for $80, and it has everything an enthusiast needs. When you pay $150 + for a motherboard, all you're gettings is things like SLI, FireWire, extra RAID controllers, and orange neon accents that most midrage users don't care about.
top of the line process for $400-$1000.
You can pick up a decent midrange processor for $200, and since most games aren't heavily multi-threaded, this is not such a bad solution. You know they alweays charge a premium on the high-end processors for very little improvement.
Throw in 1GB ($60) or 2GB ($150), and you have a gaming machine that does much more, and doesn't require a $600-8000 HDTV to get the most out of the system.
Midrange gamer's upgrade:
So, that's $520 for a very nice midrange upgrade, or $700 for a high-end upgrade. Even if you throw in a case and monitor, you can still finish the build for under $1000. With the full-featured PS3 at $600, the PS3 is only competitive if you already own an HDTV.
Why was the Nintendo 64 shipping without a disc drive "the biggest mistake in video game business history?"
Because the market was demanding more storage capacity than ROMs could offer (16-32MB early in the N64's lifetime, 64MB later). Nintendo lost Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest to PlayStation because of this.
What are the advantages of CD/DVD again?
10x the capacity of the largest N64 cards ever manufacturered. CD soundtracks, pre-rendered video, streamed textures - you name it.
At least in those days when you could fit an entire game on a ROM, tell me again why it was a bad idea?
As stated above, the industry wanted more space. It was sort of like a "gaming cold war". One game company moves to CD-ROM, and produces a fantastic work. Next thing you know, companies feel they have to move to CD-ROM for certain genres or perish.
Because it didn't require ridiculous loading screens?
The Nintendo 64 was released 2 years after the PlayStation. Had Nintendo approached the system with an optical drive instead of cartridge, they could have easily put in a 4x or 6x CD-ROM drive, beating the pants off Sony's (2x drive) loading times.
N64 games could have had more varied textures, voice acting, pre-rendered movies, CD audio, the works. Instead, they had the same old thing with 3D graphics.
By the time the N64 was released, game makers had already figured out streaming techniques that made PS games MUCH larger and more varied in their textures than previously thought possible. If Nintendo had paid attention to the market, they would have known developers would catch on.
Because it made life harder for piraters?
It made life harder for the game makers as well. They had to eat the extra cost of building a cartridge, and it meant higher game prices. A 32 / 64MB cart required MULTIPLE ROM chips, plus a PCB with an edge connector. This was non-trivial to manufacture, and made the N64 games more expensive.
Nintendo proved THEMSELVES that you can make an optical format that is all but pirate-proof...they just did it one generation too late, and it hurt them in marketshare.
Known paid for Microsoft astroturfer using multiple accounts to self mod up posts.
Looking at the latest post history of the computer guy nex can tall you a lot about him:
VERY pro Xbox 360 (he is a 360 owner, so this is no surprise) VERY xenophobic (anti-asian, anti Japanese posts) Anti-Apple Pro-HD-DVD Anti-Revolution Pro-Halo 3 (obvious)
But none of this makes him an MS shill. This just makes him your average Slashdotter who gives a shit about something. Jusst take whatever he says with a grain of salt, and depend on the moderators to handle his most outrageous flames and trolls. They have in the past.
You, on the other hand, are so pathetic that you make accusations without logging in.
S3 has always been a company run by complete retards. They never bothered to appeal to the high-end gamer until it was way too late, and by that time they had fallen critically behind.
ATI and Nvidia learned the hard way: appeal to the entire market, low to high-end. Use the innovations gained in the latest high-end designs on the next-generation mid-range. Thus, your designs are constantly fresh, and games are constantly using new features, which means customers actually have a reason to buy your new products. At the same time, your products are always in the spotlight, so even those gamers not willing to shell out for top-shelf may purchase one of your low-end offerings.
Take a look at S3. For about two years they dicked around with the ViRGE, never doing anything to attract the hardcore gamer, just selling a lower-midrange "Free-D" solution with crappy drivers.
Then they came out with the Savage 3D, and looked like they got a jump on the industry with the first graphics chip on 0.25 micron process. But then the truth came out: the yields and speeds available on the early 0.25 micron process were lackluster, the drivers still sucked, and the card was limited by a maximum 8MB onboard and a pitiful 64-bit memory bus.
S3 continued meandering, even a year later. The Savage 4 (two texture pipes) looked competitive to the TNT2 / G400 / Voodoo 3, but then they tacked-on that same repulsive 64-bit memory bus, and the drivers STILL HAD SERIOUS VISUAL QUALITY BUGS!
So, S3 finally "got it", and offered the Savage 2000, a 2 pixel pipe, 4 texture unit card said to be clocked even higher than the GeForce 256. It offered a real 128-bit bus, and T&L. Unfortunately, it was too late to save S3. By then, they were purchaed by Diamond Multimedia, and the writing was on the wall. The Savage 2000 was late, didn't have functional T&L, and didn't outperform the competition.
There was some talk of releasing an updated part with functional T&L and DDR, but then Nvidia released the GeForce 2 GTS, and a few months later ATI released the Radeon, and everyone knew S3 was toast.
Via purchased S3 because Via needed an integrated video chipset in this day and age. Via has improved (slowly) on the assets they acquired from S3, but they will never catch up with ATI and Nvidia. They still market standalone cards with their Chrome series of chips because having cards on the market improves brand awareness and makes a few bucks, and new features in the standalone cards can trickle down to the integrated chipsets (where the real money is for Via), like the K8M890.
They key here is not "best", just "good enough." Via doesn't have to beat ATI or Nvidia, they just have to offer a better integrated graphics solution than Intel, something that runs Vista acceptably.
While it is not a bad idea, HyperMemory and Turbo Cache will eventually go the way of AGP texturing (DiME). Just like AGP texturing, fast, large, cheap memory will eventually make HM and TC obsolete, even with the huge bandwidth increase dual-channel main memory plus PCIe offers.
I have to agree. I am a Nintendo fanboy, but the name "Wii" has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Why didn't they leave it "Revolution?" What, are they worried about the name encouraging young people to hate the system, write a book about it and rise to power in an overwhelming coup?
Now with it named "Wii" the kids will get beat up at school, write LiveJournal entries about how they failed to commit suicide for the eighth time this month, and pretend they'll slit their parents' throats late one night and end it all.
Or maybe I'm thinking too hard. Perhaps Nintendo renamed it because the finished product will be too underwheling to be called a "Revolution."
Slashdot Mirror
Take a closer look at the linked image. The two top colums are CELL. Not RSX, CELL.
And the theoretical bandwidth numbers listed for CELL to main memory are those of the direct XDR interface. You'll note that the RSX has much lower numbers because it accesses main memory through a bridge bus (much like a graphics card on PCIe).
On the Cell, there is only one thing local memory can mean, and that is the local memory of each SPE.
NOTE: this can be a serious issue, because each SPE MUST read instructions and write results to the local memory. It is up to the main processor to load instructions into this memory from main memory, and to copy results from this local memory to main.
The first DVD player was available in the U.S. in early 1997. It came with virtually no competing technologies (a la HD-DVD).
Do you forget so easily? DVD defeated Divx in only 2 years, well before the release of the Playstation 2...that is how STRONG the DVD format was by the year 2000.
You are quite correct though, DVD sold the PS2. People justified the high pricetag because it was also a DVD player, and I really don't expect that to happen this time around.
Unfortunately, look at the flak that Oblivion is getting for just that. For me, it's one of the single best features of the game, and not once have I heard a cohesive reasonable argument against it, but yet a staggering number of people can't stand it.
I have to agree. Up until now, when I played an RPG, random battles would go up or down in difficulty and loot / experience as a function of geography. If you went through previous areas, it was largely boring, beause the enimes were predictably easy.
In Oblivion, it is a function of your level. If you're higher-level, it means a tougher wolf/bear/boar/bandit/etc attacks you. This isn't just increased toughness and strength, it involves improved tactics.
Since your experience is based on actual use of skills, this is great, because, not only do you boost your blade/blunt, athletics, block, light/heavy armor, sneak, you also end up using your magika, or possibly potions. After encounters, you take advantage of the mayhem to boost your precious armorer skill.
I have noticed that QUESTS don't scale up in difficulty as your level increases (or at least I've gotten that impression so far), and for this my hat's off to Bethesda. I mean, if you're having issues finishing a quest...WAIT! You can always go back later.
32" CRT HDTV's are around $500 now. Yeah it's CRT technology, but still packs a great picture that is larger than a 36" SDTV screen would show in letterbox.
But it cuts both ways. Your 16:9 widescren TV is %20 smaller than a 4:3 television when showing 4:3 content...unless you like distorted pictures.
And since the vast majority of television is still 4:3, you realize that you really need a 38" wide-screen HDTV just to get the same screen area as the 32" 4:3 TV.
This is why people don't want to "upgrade," because it often brings compromises. You either have to pay more for a larger set, or settle for a much smaller 4:3 picture, or distorted 4:3 filling a 16:9 screen.
I am not going to upgrade until the vast majority of the shows I watch are widescreen, negating this issue.
Well, my college was connected with token ring up until 2001, when they did a complete network overhaul. Maybe you got one of our transfer students :D
Apparently, my college got a great deal on token ring from IBM in the early 90s, and at the time it was plenty fast. But by the mid 90s, it was showing its age, with no upgrade path. Back when my college still had no clue how to manage their network (read: 1997, pre-Napster), it consisted of a "turbo" (16Mbit) token ring backbone with various 4Mbit and 16Mbit rings. The bridge to the internet (single T1) was 10-base T.
Since token ring cards were really fucking expensive, the college "loaned" out token ring cards to all students. Students could either shell out $300 for a token ring card and do it themselves, or drop their computers off for a few days and get a "loaner" installed. I say "loaner" because when I graduated in 2001, and the entire network was upgraded, the school sure as hell didn't want these old token ring cards back.
Then the students discovered computers, and then discovered Napster and IM. Within a year, the college upgraded to dual T1s, then a fractional T3, and finally got off their ass and designed a better network. Gigabit optical backbones, 100-base T in the rooms, upgradable to gigabit ethernet. Too bad I wasn't around to enjoy it...
I mean, when you have the mass of the Great A'Tuin on the bottom, plus the mass of 4 giant elephants in the center, and the relatively puny mass of the Discworld on top...OF COURSE the magnetic field is going to be a bit assymetrical.
Duh!
Defining Computer Literacy with hard limits is about as stupid as trying to define Cultural Literacy. There's no point in trying to hit such a constantly moving target, you juet try to keep up as best you can.
When I was in jr high school (1992), we had a REQUIRED class called "Computer Literacy." It was taught in a brand-new lab full of Apple IIc machines.
Objective of the class? Half the class was training on how to use AppleWorks and design programs, and the other half was spent learning some simple programming in BASIC. I loved the class because my family was dirt-poor, and hadn't been able to justify the cost of a computer, but my exceptional performance in the class gave my family and I extra drive to save up for one. The point of classes like this should be:
1. To give everyone a shot at understanding the "basics" of computers.
2. To give students with talent in the field an opportunity to discover their potential.
I thought the class was perfectly balanced, and could be taught in a similar format even today with modern office suites and modern "simple" languages. You don't want to make the class TOO advanced, or you'll scare away the less talented students. You also don't want to make the class too dull, or you'll leave the talented students bored. Finding that balance is all you need.
I could have sworn I linked correctly.
Here is the correct link:
Anandtech's Real-Time Pricing Engine
but what I believe would be really handy is a graph of the price of any given component over time (with a time range of anything from three months to three years).
Happy Birthday!
Anandtech's Real-Time Pricing Engine gives you real-time prices, plus a graph of the last 6 months of price changes.
I'm amazed at the fact that they log 6 months of history, and offer it to the public at no charge. Most accounting firms charge through the nose for this kind of pricing trend data.
I'm guessing that CPUs have a reasonably shallow curve (since the product lifespan is longer than the typical motherboard or graphics card), but I'm not sure
In recent years, you'd be correct. The x86 CPU market has come up against a wall, because you can only parallelize scalar x86 code so much on-the-fly. Improvements in CPU architectures like Conroe now take MUCH longer to design, for less and less performace gains than in previous years. Also, the percentage megahertz gain from process improvements is also hitting a wall, which is another reason CPU prices remain stagnant.
if they'd run 2 quake4's at the same time on the machine, the results would be interesting
That would be true, if not for the fact that Quake 4 is multithreaded.
So are Oblivion and Serious Sam 2.
You think the "classics" are bad? There's a reason most classes for kids to read books like "The Grapes of Wrath" and "The Great Gatsby"...because there are WORSE books.
You think "The Grapes of Wrath" puts kids to sleep? Try reading through a crap-fest like "East of Eden." I think even the happiest person in the world would contemplate suicide rather than finish this book.
And how about "The Great Gatsby?" Fitzgerald can't write for crap, and later books like "Tender is the Night" only help prove that point. I couldn't read 10 pages of that without falling asleep.
Kids read the "classics" because the classics are at least READABLE. You can probably get through "Wrath" without beating your brain into a pulp out of sheer boredom, and "Gatsby" is readable tough-love story with a few beers. There are SO MANY WORSE books out there.
Then what happens when Grandma decides to order Verizon DSL so she can "email and internet" her grandkids?
Oh, I'm sorry, the installation CD with the configuration for Verizon's PPPoE network is Windows-only. I guess Grandma will have to sift through forums on how to enable PPPoE on Linux...once she comes to understand just what the hell PPPoE MEANS. If she could have used Windows, the Verizon setup CD would have taken care of all of this for her.
And once Grandma gets on the internet, and starts discovering she can't play Shockwave or Java games (yes, I know the JRE license changed...last week. it will be at least 6 more months before the results filter down), or watch wmv videos of cute children and cute kittens that her grandchildren sent her in the email. Boy, is she enjoying that new computer!
* Off-topic, but I must pick this nit: Windows XP starts up new users at 800x600...and unless Grandma is one-in-a-million, her eyes can't handle higher resolutions than that on the cheap 17" bundled monitor anyway.
The Itanium is just not as impressive as it once was, and it's rapidly being made redundant by improvfements in the x86 world. For example, your specs:
62, 99, and 130 Watts, and check out the new memory bandwidth numbers: 10.6 GB/sec.
Don't tell the real story. Yes, this is true, you can get an Itanium 2 processor that doesn't top 62w, but that requires you to purchase one of the LV line, which comes with only a 400 MHz FSB (maximum bandwidth of only 12.8 GB/s), and a maximum speed of 1.3 GHz. It is also limited to 3MB onboard cache.
See, the problem is the architecture is REALLY cache hungry, more-so than the x86 architecture, and it really needs a huge cache and high-bandwidth memory. The EPIC architecture itself has a much larger instruction size then x86 (41-bit versus [average] 24-bit). The Itanium 2 lacks a branch predictor, which means it executes both podssible directions of the branch, and this can thrash even larger caches. The Itanium 2 also doesn't support out-of-order execution, so if it encounters a cache miss, performance suffers.
Thanks to this, the Itanium, a relatively simple processor, nedds an astoundly expensive cache and high-bandwidth memory to function well. Unfortunately, this means that the 1.5-3MB cache modes will not perform NEARLY as well as their high-end 6MB or 9MB cache brothers. Have a look at these benchmarks...the 1.3 GHz, 3MB cache processor just matches the (much cheaper) 2.2 GHz Opteron in FP, the same processor available in 55w TDP. It also performs much worse than the 4MB and 6MB cache models, clock-for-clock.
For example, the 1.4 GHz Itanium 2 processor, clocked only 8% faster, has 18% better performance due to the 4MB cache. The 1.5 Ghz Itanium 2, clocked only 15% faster, has 34% better performance due to the massive 6MB cache. So, you see the sweetspot for the Itanium 2 lies somewhere in the range of 4-6MB cache. Unfortunately, these chips are only available through the (VERY expensive, and VERY power-hungry) Multi-Processor (MP) line.
Kinda makes you wonder why anyone uses Itanium anymore. The Opteron has bested the Itanium's impressive bus and memory bandwidth, not by offering higher peak bandwidth, but by providing better efficiency. Thanks to the embedded, low-latency memory controller, the Opteron gets a lot more bandwidth out of its dual-channel DDR-400 in real-world situations than the Itanium can out of its dual-channel DDR2-667.
By next year, K8L Opterons will not only offer the same peak bandwidth numbers (10.6 GB/s using DDR2-667), they will also have double the vector and floating-point power of previous Opterons. Intel's Core 2-based server parts will also kick the Itanium's ass, making the Itanium redundant. Don't you love progress?
That, and it is about TIME Microsoft released REAL OS requirements for memory, instead of their bullshit requirements...
Windows 95: 4MB minimum, 8MB recommended. Yesh, raise your hand if you actually got anything useful done on Win95 with less than 16MB, especially once the internet got popular!
Windows 98: 16MB minimum, 32MB recommended. Sure, try surfing and writing a document at the same time, and you'll be beggin for 64MB.
Windows XP: 64MB minimum, 128MB recommended, but 256MB if you don't want to pull your hair out waiting for your favorite application to swap in and out of disk cache.
512MB minimum, with 1GB recommended, and the recommened specs are actually USABLE? Now those are specs I can live with, even if they are a bit high.
As stated previously, you can run Vista with much lower specs, you just can't use Aeroglass.
All you Linux folks still think we are all stuck in the 1980s, when hardware companies were small, and most hardware was simple bit twiddling with a minimalistic software layer.
Specs back in the day were free (for the most part) because there was nothing exceptional about any one computing platform. You had many different processor platforms, many different busses, all competing for your money with very little diffeence in performance and capability. It is no surprise that developers released full specs, both to make customers happy, and to encourage other developers to improve on the platform.
But today, we have a specialized computer industry. Gone are the myriad of user-level busses...what's left is PCI, AGP and PCIe, all thoroughly-documented standards. Gone are the simple expansion cards adding new features - all the features %90 of users need can be found integrated on a small low-cost motherboard.
And what about those users who actually USE expansion cards? They get them for VERY specialized purposes - a high-speed wired or wireless interconnect. Hardware sound co-processing, or extra sound channels. High-bandwidth TV tuners or video capture cards. High-performance 3D acceleration.
Unfortunately, these specialized and powerful cards come at a price: good performance requires trade secrets, copyrighted functionality licensed from other conglomerates, and optimized drivers. Why build your own PCIe interface from scratch when CompanyX will sell you one for 3 cents per port? Why design your own lossless texture compression routine when CompanyY SPECIALIZES in it? Why reinvent the wheel interfacing to your GDDR3 memory when dozens of companies have already designed high-performance crossbar memory switches? All these features are suddenly worth good money, both in the hardware your company sells, and in the licenses.
Also, all you Linux Open-Source zealots forget one additional thing: the DRIVER is the MOST IMPORTANT part of the modern expansion card, ESPECIALLY with video cards. If the driver is not in PEAK performance, the user is more likely to notice than, say, a USB2 driver, or a network driver. For ATI and Nvidia, the driver IS the company. What if the open-source community can't meet the performance levels of closed source drivers? Then ATI and Nvidia look bad. What if the open-source community starts to think it can build a better graphics card, instead of making drivers for Nvidia and ATI, since they already know how it works?
You want to insist ATI and Nvidia share their specifications, just to please a tiny market? That's like Coke giving away their secret formula so tribes of the Amazon rainforest can make their own. You tell me how long it takes for %100 perfect knockoffs to hit the street and kill Coke's marketshare. By my last look, it takes an awful lot of time and effort just to design a RELATIVLEY SIMPLE graphics processor. Why give your potential competitors an INCREDIBLE edge?
The AGP version costs more for two reasons:
1. It requires a bridge chip (ATI's "Rialto" or Nvidia's "HSI"). This means an additional chip on the board. the board has to be redesigned to fit the bridge chip, and the cooling solution has to be redesigned to cool the bridge chip (they get hot).
2. No major manufacturers are shipping NEW systems with AGP support, so all AGP cards are "add-in only", making the market smaller with each passing day. Thus, most AGP boards are much shorter runs than their PCIe counterparts. These people are also too cheap to upgrade to a PCIe motherboard, and just see an AGP upgrade now as a "stopgap", so manufacturers figure most AGP buyers are unwilling to pay for a high-end card. Thus, the reason there are few high-end AGP options on the market.
Exactly. There is a pricepoint for every budget, and thankfully ATI is starting to improve their pricing so they can actually offer a competitive product. S3 has also helped kick the chair out from under the bottom-end cards, bringing prices even lower.
Here are some current-generation cards worth considering for excellent price to performance ratios in their price class:
x1300, 7300 GS ($60)
s27, x1300 Pro ($80)
x1600 Pro, 7600 GS ($110)
7600 GT ($160)
x1800 XT 256MB, 7900 GT 256MB ($250-300)
Unfortunately, there are some cards to avoid:
x1600 XT: at $150, this card is beaten by the 7600 GS in many games (a $110 card!), and is completely toasted by the 7600 GT, which is only a few dollars more.
x1800 GTO: this card perfoms similarly to the 7600 GT, but costs more ($200). Enthusiasts like it because there is a possibility of unlocking 4 extra pipes and turning the card into an x1800 XL (while voiding the warranty). Most people, however, don't want to mess with such things.
Just like last time around, ATI is unwilling to compete with Nvidia in the midrange, so the 7600 GS and 7600 GT have no real competition...unless features like HDR + AA and Avivo interest you.
Absolutely right.
I used to be pretty much anti-Ipod in the past, but the lack of agility in this industry is utterly pathetic. Competitors in the DAP market these days, even big ones like Creative and Sony, just don't have the balls to do anything *CREATIVE* or *DARING*.
When the Shuffle was released, it caused a price drop around the industry. Then, instead of taking the reins, DAP makers just stuck with their current 512MB and 1GB flash players, and tried to compete on price and features.
Then Apple released the Nano, taking the (AMAZING!) step of adding a second flash chip. Why none of the other DAP makers bothered to do this, I have no clue, but it is obvious they were too afraid to stray above Apple's pricing. Unfortunately, now they're stuck with 1GB players as their high-end, while Apple offers 2GB for $50 more, and 4GB for $100 more.
Six months later, they've BARELY started catching up, and you can bet once again they'll sit on their laurels, and wait for Apple to make the next move. PISSES ME OFF, but sadly this is how the DAP industry will work until Apple starts sitting on their laurels. Well, at least we have Rockbox so you can get around Apple's mandatory database.
Yes, I have to agree, I like Jason's simple upgrade of the existing design. The drop shadows make it look cleaner, and take away from that "antiseptic white" that has plagued Slashdot for so long.
Looks very slick.
My only complaint: as mentioned in other posts, the text does not resize in IE 6.0.28. This is a CRITICAL issue, so I wouldn't give it the thumbs-up until this is fixed. Hopefully, the bugs will be dealt with.
Consider this: the kind of person (A) who already has an HDTV and (B) is a hardcore enough gamer to spend $600 for a gaming system and (C) quotes PC component prices when justifying the high cost of the PS3 is most likely (D) the kind of person who has the know-how to shop around and build their own gaming machine.
So let's revisit your prices.
A top of the line graphics card costs $500-600.
The "top-of-the-line" graphics card in the PS3 is a cross between a 7900 GT (similar pixel fillrate) and a 7600 GT (same memory bandwidth). You can purchase a 7600 GT and get a similar quality experience for $180, or blow away the PS3 for $300 with a 7900 GT.
A top of the line mobo for $120-$180
The motherboard doesn't cost much either, if you know what to look for. I picked up an ASUS A8N5X for $80, and it has everything an enthusiast needs. When you pay $150 + for a motherboard, all you're gettings is things like SLI, FireWire, extra RAID controllers, and orange neon accents that most midrage users don't care about.
top of the line process for $400-$1000.
You can pick up a decent midrange processor for $200, and since most games aren't heavily multi-threaded, this is not such a bad solution. You know they alweays charge a premium on the high-end processors for very little improvement.
Throw in 1GB ($60) or 2GB ($150), and you have a gaming machine that does much more, and doesn't require a $600-8000 HDTV to get the most out of the system.
Midrange gamer's upgrade:
So, that's $520 for a very nice midrange upgrade, or $700 for a high-end upgrade. Even if you throw in a case and monitor, you can still finish the build for under $1000. With the full-featured PS3 at $600, the PS3 is only competitive if you already own an HDTV.
Why was the Nintendo 64 shipping without a disc drive "the biggest mistake in video game business history?"
Because the market was demanding more storage capacity than ROMs could offer (16-32MB early in the N64's lifetime, 64MB later). Nintendo lost Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest to PlayStation because of this.
What are the advantages of CD/DVD again?
10x the capacity of the largest N64 cards ever manufacturered. CD soundtracks, pre-rendered video, streamed textures - you name it.
At least in those days when you could fit an entire game on a ROM, tell me again why it was a bad idea?
As stated above, the industry wanted more space. It was sort of like a "gaming cold war". One game company moves to CD-ROM, and produces a fantastic work. Next thing you know, companies feel they have to move to CD-ROM for certain genres or perish.
Because it didn't require ridiculous loading screens?
The Nintendo 64 was released 2 years after the PlayStation. Had Nintendo approached the system with an optical drive instead of cartridge, they could have easily put in a 4x or 6x CD-ROM drive, beating the pants off Sony's (2x drive) loading times.
N64 games could have had more varied textures, voice acting, pre-rendered movies, CD audio, the works. Instead, they had the same old thing with 3D graphics.
By the time the N64 was released, game makers had already figured out streaming techniques that made PS games MUCH larger and more varied in their textures than previously thought possible. If Nintendo had paid attention to the market, they would have known developers would catch on.
Because it made life harder for piraters?
It made life harder for the game makers as well. They had to eat the extra cost of building a cartridge, and it meant higher game prices. A 32 / 64MB cart required MULTIPLE ROM chips, plus a PCB with an edge connector. This was non-trivial to manufacture, and made the N64 games more expensive.
Nintendo proved THEMSELVES that you can make an optical format that is all but pirate-proof...they just did it one generation too late, and it hurt them in marketshare.
Check post history.
Known paid for Microsoft astroturfer using multiple accounts to self mod up posts.
Looking at the latest post history of the computer guy nex can tall you a lot about him:
VERY pro Xbox 360 (he is a 360 owner, so this is no surprise)
VERY xenophobic (anti-asian, anti Japanese posts)
Anti-Apple
Pro-HD-DVD
Anti-Revolution
Pro-Halo 3 (obvious)
But none of this makes him an MS shill. This just makes him your average Slashdotter who gives a shit about something. Jusst take whatever he says with a grain of salt, and depend on the moderators to handle his most outrageous flames and trolls. They have in the past.
You, on the other hand, are so pathetic that you make accusations without logging in.
S3 has always been a company run by complete retards. They never bothered to appeal to the high-end gamer until it was way too late, and by that time they had fallen critically behind.
ATI and Nvidia learned the hard way: appeal to the entire market, low to high-end. Use the innovations gained in the latest high-end designs on the next-generation mid-range. Thus, your designs are constantly fresh, and games are constantly using new features, which means customers actually have a reason to buy your new products. At the same time, your products are always in the spotlight, so even those gamers not willing to shell out for top-shelf may purchase one of your low-end offerings.
Take a look at S3. For about two years they dicked around with the ViRGE, never doing anything to attract the hardcore gamer, just selling a lower-midrange "Free-D" solution with crappy drivers.
Then they came out with the Savage 3D, and looked like they got a jump on the industry with the first graphics chip on 0.25 micron process. But then the truth came out: the yields and speeds available on the early 0.25 micron process were lackluster, the drivers still sucked, and the card was limited by a maximum 8MB onboard and a pitiful 64-bit memory bus.
S3 continued meandering, even a year later. The Savage 4 (two texture pipes) looked competitive to the TNT2 / G400 / Voodoo 3, but then they tacked-on that same repulsive 64-bit memory bus, and the drivers STILL HAD SERIOUS VISUAL QUALITY BUGS!
So, S3 finally "got it", and offered the Savage 2000, a 2 pixel pipe, 4 texture unit card said to be clocked even higher than the GeForce 256. It offered a real 128-bit bus, and T&L. Unfortunately, it was too late to save S3. By then, they were purchaed by Diamond Multimedia, and the writing was on the wall. The Savage 2000 was late, didn't have functional T&L, and didn't outperform the competition.
There was some talk of releasing an updated part with functional T&L and DDR, but then Nvidia released the GeForce 2 GTS, and a few months later ATI released the Radeon, and everyone knew S3 was toast.
Via purchased S3 because Via needed an integrated video chipset in this day and age. Via has improved (slowly) on the assets they acquired from S3, but they will never catch up with ATI and Nvidia. They still market standalone cards with their Chrome series of chips because having cards on the market improves brand awareness and makes a few bucks, and new features in the standalone cards can trickle down to the integrated chipsets (where the real money is for Via), like the K8M890.
They key here is not "best", just "good enough." Via doesn't have to beat ATI or Nvidia, they just have to offer a better integrated graphics solution than Intel, something that runs Vista acceptably.
ATI already did this with the release of their Catalysts 5.7 driverset last year. Those drivers enabled HyperMemory for all ATI cards.
The benefits were fairly good on 128MB cards, especially those with slower 128-bit memory. There were few benefits on cards with 256MB ram and faster-clocked memory, and there was even a sloght performance loss on the high-end.
While it is not a bad idea, HyperMemory and Turbo Cache will eventually go the way of AGP texturing (DiME). Just like AGP texturing, fast, large, cheap memory will eventually make HM and TC obsolete, even with the huge bandwidth increase dual-channel main memory plus PCIe offers.
I have to agree. I am a Nintendo fanboy, but the name "Wii" has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Why didn't they leave it "Revolution?" What, are they worried about the name encouraging young people to hate the system, write a book about it and rise to power in an overwhelming coup?
Now with it named "Wii" the kids will get beat up at school, write LiveJournal entries about how they failed to commit suicide for the eighth time this month, and pretend they'll slit their parents' throats late one night and end it all.
Or maybe I'm thinking too hard. Perhaps Nintendo renamed it because the finished product will be too underwheling to be called a "Revolution."