I doubt many believe that. If someone decides to change their vote because of this they will hardly change it from right-wing to socialist, they will pick another right-wing alternative since there are several. And I doubt poor internet security will give SAP any new votes, if anything I'd say they are harmed by it.
Nothing you have posted suggests that Intel is very dependent on ATI for anything. Sure, third party suppliers like ATI will provide a significant amount of chipsets used with Intel products. If Intel considered that the lack of chip sets was a problem in general they could increase their own production, it's not like they are without factories of their own.
Did you play games before our current degree of risk-averseness set in, say the C64 days? Yep, most games were clones and they sucked really bad, in fact they were a lot worse than the bad games of today. This is something you tend to overlook since you don't remember all the crappy games you only played for a few minutes or so.
Sure, there was creativity then, but there is creativity now too. Also, the people who complain about the lack of creativity today are often very unaware of the wealth of games coming from independent game companies. Maybe they realize that creative is not the same as good, or they just don't have the time to waste finding the gems among these games in the same way they did 20 years ago.
Maybe it didn't use to mean anything, but times are changing. It gets a lot harder to cool processors as you have a lot more power dissipation per area unit. Having low temperatures with standard heatsinks at least means that they've solved the problem of distributing the heat reasonably well.
Is the slashdot truth that the Itanium is doomed? The comparison with Athlon 64 is not interesting, the only AMD processor that is close to competing with Itaniums would be the Opteron 8xx, the competitor of Athlon64 is Pentium IV, and the other Opterons competes with the Xeons. How do you think those sales numbers look in comparison?
I will personally buy an Athlon 64 next though, and so will a lot of other sladotters as well. We are an important group to AMD, but very few on slashdot understand the market segment that the Itanium is targeting. I think it is a shame that it is such a closed architecture, because I think it's a lot more interesting than seeing yet another extension of the x86.
Yes, I missed that he was replying to a question about compilation...I thought he just picked one good score in a test and stated that it showed that it was extremely good in that area when it could have been specific for that test (since it wasn't better in general). It would be interesting to see more compiler related tests to determine how good it really is in that area. Anyway, sorry about about the lazy reading.
Informative? If you look at the test you linked it doesn't seem like the A64 3000+ beats the P4 3.4EE in general, in fact it looks like it's slower in most tests.
Do you mean that it is _more_ misleading to sell a chip that runs at 3.2Ghz as a 3.2Ghz processor than selling a 2.2 Ghz one as a 3200+? I don't have any problems with the numbers (I have an AMD right now) but their numbers would become misleading if Intel e.g improved the FSB very much or increased the cache size a lot. Such a 3.2Ghz processor would be faster than the previous one and maybe also faster than the "3200+".
Re:AMD have been better than Intel for some time..
on
AMD Back in the Black
·
· Score: 1
Since you got +5 informative I just have to comment on one thing that makes you sound like an AMD fanboy. I think it can be accurate to say that high clock speed means higher performace and higher dissipation OR that it doesn't equate to either performance or high dissipation because BOTH these things depend on the architecture. You make it sound like high clock speed sucks, or at least only gives a "slight edge in multimedia performance". I agree that the Athlon64 3000+ is a good buy though.
I actually disagree, at least partially. Prices don't decrease as fast as people think, but the model numbers increase quickly. I bought my new card (ti200->5900XT, $200, got $50 for the old one) around two weeks ago and I noticed that it wasn't entirely easy finding cheap cards that were better. A card like the 9600SE has an impressive looking model number but half the bandwidth of the ti200, and it only costs half as much as the ti200 did two years ago. If you would have bought the 9700Pro when it was new you would have a card that is still among best, it is at least about as good as my 5900XT, but early one you would have had the best card there was. I think people are being fooled by the new cards with lower performance than the previous generation.
I know what you mean, but it is still a strange statement. Blizzard doesn't owe you or me anything and we're not the ones giving them more time. We are of course the ones who are supposed to buy the final product, but if that product is good I don't care how long it took to make it, and I think most consumers agree.
I don't understand posts like yours. You are not a troll, you have to know certain things and you sound and are moderated insightful. However I don't understand why you say what you say unless you don't really know what you are talking about. You use the old and useless argument about "syntactic sugar" that means virtually nothing, you could say that about almost every feature. Some features are of course "harmful", probably because everything related to Microsoft has to be.
JDK 1.5 will get a very limited form of generics, that is true. The C# - version is also limited, but it might at least help with performance as well. The comment about "much later" time is of course nonsense.
Calling all.net languages "fundamentally equal" is another pointless remark. Of course programming languages are equal in many ways, but I would say there is a difference between C++ and Haskell for example.
You were basically fooled by "marketing", and I don't see why your conclusion would be "Fuck the binary drivers". The problem in this case isn't the binary drivers themselves, it's just that the claim on the box was false. Just because the manufacturer created drivers for a specific distro/kernel doesn't mean that you or anyone else is somehow forbidden from writing open source drivers.
With respect to the point of losing money, I recommend you to read some of the other posts in this thread. They might actually contain some useful information.
Why did this get such a high score? Why not compare an old Sparc 4 against an Athlon 64 or a Pentium 4, the Sparc has a RISC processor so it should be faster, right? The PPC 440 might be faster for a number of reasons, and being RISC instead of CISC is hardly even among the most significant. That x86 has a crappy ISA doesn't mean CISC that has to be slower than RISC in general.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be a very specific and narrow subset, but it's also the subset where the big money is, at least for the moment.
I doubt many believe that. If someone decides to change their vote because of this they will hardly change it from right-wing to socialist, they will pick another right-wing alternative since there are several. And I doubt poor internet security will give SAP any new votes, if anything I'd say they are harmed by it.
Nothing you have posted suggests that Intel is very dependent on ATI for anything. Sure, third party suppliers like ATI will provide a significant amount of chipsets used with Intel products. If Intel considered that the lack of chip sets was a problem in general they could increase their own production, it's not like they are without factories of their own.
Do you have any sort of evidence to back up such a strange claim? This isn't interesting, this is just the usual nonsense.
Did you play games before our current degree of risk-averseness set in, say the C64 days? Yep, most games were clones and they sucked really bad, in fact they were a lot worse than the bad games of today. This is something you tend to overlook since you don't remember all the crappy games you only played for a few minutes or so. Sure, there was creativity then, but there is creativity now too. Also, the people who complain about the lack of creativity today are often very unaware of the wealth of games coming from independent game companies. Maybe they realize that creative is not the same as good, or they just don't have the time to waste finding the gems among these games in the same way they did 20 years ago.
Maybe it didn't use to mean anything, but times are changing. It gets a lot harder to cool processors as you have a lot more power dissipation per area unit. Having low temperatures with standard heatsinks at least means that they've solved the problem of distributing the heat reasonably well.
Is the slashdot truth that the Itanium is doomed? The comparison with Athlon 64 is not interesting, the only AMD processor that is close to competing with Itaniums would be the Opteron 8xx, the competitor of Athlon64 is Pentium IV, and the other Opterons competes with the Xeons. How do you think those sales numbers look in comparison? I will personally buy an Athlon 64 next though, and so will a lot of other sladotters as well. We are an important group to AMD, but very few on slashdot understand the market segment that the Itanium is targeting. I think it is a shame that it is such a closed architecture, because I think it's a lot more interesting than seeing yet another extension of the x86.
Yes, I missed that he was replying to a question about compilation...I thought he just picked one good score in a test and stated that it showed that it was extremely good in that area when it could have been specific for that test (since it wasn't better in general). It would be interesting to see more compiler related tests to determine how good it really is in that area. Anyway, sorry about about the lazy reading.
It's just a compilation of a single program with a single compiler in a test where it is not faster in general.
Informative? If you look at the test you linked it doesn't seem like the A64 3000+ beats the P4 3.4EE in general, in fact it looks like it's slower in most tests.
Do you mean that it is _more_ misleading to sell a chip that runs at 3.2Ghz as a 3.2Ghz processor than selling a 2.2 Ghz one as a 3200+? I don't have any problems with the numbers (I have an AMD right now) but their numbers would become misleading if Intel e.g improved the FSB very much or increased the cache size a lot. Such a 3.2Ghz processor would be faster than the previous one and maybe also faster than the "3200+".
Since you got +5 informative I just have to comment on one thing that makes you sound like an AMD fanboy. I think it can be accurate to say that high clock speed means higher performace and higher dissipation OR that it doesn't equate to either performance or high dissipation because BOTH these things depend on the architecture. You make it sound like high clock speed sucks, or at least only gives a "slight edge in multimedia performance". I agree that the Athlon64 3000+ is a good buy though.
I actually disagree, at least partially. Prices don't decrease as fast as people think, but the model numbers increase quickly. I bought my new card (ti200->5900XT, $200, got $50 for the old one) around two weeks ago and I noticed that it wasn't entirely easy finding cheap cards that were better. A card like the 9600SE has an impressive looking model number but half the bandwidth of the ti200, and it only costs half as much as the ti200 did two years ago. If you would have bought the 9700Pro when it was new you would have a card that is still among best, it is at least about as good as my 5900XT, but early one you would have had the best card there was. I think people are being fooled by the new cards with lower performance than the previous generation.
I know what you mean, but it is still a strange statement. Blizzard doesn't owe you or me anything and we're not the ones giving them more time. We are of course the ones who are supposed to buy the final product, but if that product is good I don't care how long it took to make it, and I think most consumers agree.
I don't understand posts like yours. You are not a troll, you have to know certain things and you sound and are moderated insightful. However I don't understand why you say what you say unless you don't really know what you are talking about. You use the old and useless argument about "syntactic sugar" that means virtually nothing, you could say that about almost every feature. Some features are of course "harmful", probably because everything related to Microsoft has to be. JDK 1.5 will get a very limited form of generics, that is true. The C# - version is also limited, but it might at least help with performance as well. The comment about "much later" time is of course nonsense. Calling all .net languages "fundamentally equal" is another pointless remark. Of course programming languages are equal in many ways, but I would say there is a difference between C++ and Haskell for example.
You were basically fooled by "marketing", and I don't see why your conclusion would be "Fuck the binary drivers". The problem in this case isn't the binary drivers themselves, it's just that the claim on the box was false. Just because the manufacturer created drivers for a specific distro/kernel doesn't mean that you or anyone else is somehow forbidden from writing open source drivers. With respect to the point of losing money, I recommend you to read some of the other posts in this thread. They might actually contain some useful information.
Why did this get such a high score? Why not compare an old Sparc 4 against an Athlon 64 or a Pentium 4, the Sparc has a RISC processor so it should be faster, right? The PPC 440 might be faster for a number of reasons, and being RISC instead of CISC is hardly even among the most significant. That x86 has a crappy ISA doesn't mean CISC that has to be slower than RISC in general.