You said: "They refused the althon because of bugs in the early VIA chipsets."
Umm, dell is an "Intel exclusive" shop, they didn't refuse Athlon because of bugs, they refused (and continue to refuse) Athlons and Opterons because they're non-intel
When DirectX 9 is out the door, it will not only be faster, but look better. Much better. I suppose I'll catch flack for buying into the hype, but I've been blown away every time.
How's that? Radeon 9700 is Fully DX9 compliant, so what in GFFX will look so much better?
Even though my project isn't exactly big, or used by masses of users, most of the bugreports I get is accompanied by a reasonably good patch.
I've even had a couple of people go over most of the sources and sending in long long lists of bugs they found. And of course the occasional feature they wanted.
(but then again... it's only one project...) (http://www.bluefire.nu/droidbattles/)
Itanium is all about EPIC AND 64-bit. It's intended for big servers where you need 64-bits to be competitive.
AMD:s hammer is nextgen x86 with 64-bits added "just for extras and marketing".
>"when you have a program compiled with a good EPIC compiler, you'll have 8 instructions executed PER CLOCK, thus in theory running your program on 8 CPU's at once."
Well, The Athlon has 3 units, so that doesn't make the EPIC like 8 normal CPU:s. (And don't the Itanium have only 4 units, with Mckinley increasing to 6 or something like that?
And FYI, it's extremely hard making good EPIC compilers for general purpose code. Which is the reason for EPIC:s abysmal integer performance.
Sure, I can sympathize with intels wish to kill x86, but why replace it with something even more kludgy?
Ah, now that's very handy to know. So when Stevens says:
If you instantiate a widget on the heap as you must but then delete it yourself, as you are conditioned by your proper upbringing to do, the program fails when the parent deletes the widget a second time. Another heap of trouble.
then that's wrong ? Again, I'm not being sarcastic, I just want to know....
Yes he's wrong, it just shows hes got lots of opinions on things he don't know about
The thing is that they use the fastest server for NT (IIS) and we aren't allowed to use the fastest for Linux (Zeus?). And then they use these results to prove that NT is faster than Linux...
Apache wasn't built for speed, rather flexibility, so it's pretty pointless to test Linux vs NT with apache.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the standard size of ints is still 32 bits. The main part of any size increase would be the increased size for pointers.
You said: "They refused the althon because of bugs in the early VIA chipsets."
Umm, dell is an "Intel exclusive" shop, they didn't refuse Athlon because of bugs, they refused (and continue to refuse) Athlons and Opterons because they're non-intel
My experience is quite the opposite!
Even though my project isn't exactly big, or used by masses of users, most of the bugreports I get is accompanied by a reasonably good patch.
I've even had a couple of people go over most of the sources and sending in long long lists of bugs they found. And of course the occasional feature they wanted.
(but then again... it's only one project...) (http://www.bluefire.nu/droidbattles/)
Wonder if we could overclock it =-)
itanium -> big fat heatsink
hammer -> liquid nitrogen coolant
Have you seen the stats for itanium ???
Isn't it > 120W for that monster? The other way around in that comparison should be more fitting
Itanium is all about EPIC AND 64-bit. It's intended for big servers where you need 64-bits to be competitive.
AMD:s hammer is nextgen x86 with 64-bits added "just for extras and marketing".
>"when you have a program compiled with a good EPIC compiler, you'll have 8 instructions executed PER CLOCK, thus in theory running your program on 8 CPU's at once."
Well, The Athlon has 3 units, so that doesn't make the EPIC like 8 normal CPU:s. (And don't the Itanium have only 4 units, with Mckinley increasing to 6 or something like that?
And FYI, it's extremely hard making good EPIC compilers for general purpose code. Which is the reason for EPIC:s abysmal integer performance.
Sure, I can sympathize with intels wish to kill x86, but why replace it with something even more kludgy?
nuff said
Yes he's wrong, it just shows hes got lots of opinions on things he don't know about
It's not a lack of compassion or mercy that makes one evil.
A robberer is evil even if he has compassion...
What makes a robberer evil is not the fact that he wants money, but how he want to obtain it.
Theres two ways, stealing and producing. Companies that produces are not evil, even if the only thing they're after is money.
The thing is that they use the fastest server for NT (IIS) and we aren't allowed to use the fastest for Linux (Zeus?).
And then they use these results to prove that NT is faster than Linux...
Apache wasn't built for speed, rather flexibility, so it's pretty pointless to test Linux vs NT with apache.