i believe instead they disable a not-quite-functional core from their quad-processor reject bin.
Ah, good old intel trick.
Back in the day, the 486 had a built in FPU (maths co-processor) which was expensive. The 486 could execute integer instructions about twice as fast at the same clock speed as the 386 (which didn't have a maths co-processor built in).
So, to compete with Apple, Atari (Falcon) and Acorn (Archimedes), intel launched the 486SX, which was a 486 with the broken maths co-processor disabled.
Now, there was a 386SX. The 386 was 32-bit internally and externally. The 386SX (1988?) was hobbled to have a 16-bit internal data bus and 24-bit address bus externally much like the Motorola 68000 from about 1981 (in Macs, Ataris, Amigas etc.) No maths on board.
So this is just business. "Nothing to see here. Move along," as it were.
Oh, and I can still get a proper quad-core AMD cheaper than intel's Frankenstein offering of two dual cores sewn together, so who cares?
there's this cool thing called modules. you should read about them.
Yes, I've written a couple. Some parts of the kernel are enabled/disabled by a compile-time option. They are bigger than modules. Part of the infrastructure.
I still compile my own kernels and it's quite time consuming, but it'll be worth it to turn these features off. I'm sure all the major distros will offer kernel packages with these misfeatures disabled.
Re:Ada was designed for multiple CPUs
on
The Return of Ada
·
· Score: 1
However, one particular feature of Ada seems more suited to current hardware than other languages: it was designed to allow many computers/CPUs to communicate via the rendezvous. I don't believe that C/C++, Pascal/Delphi, or any of the most commonly used languages can say that.
Back in the late 80's/early 90's there was a descendant of Pascal called Modula-2 which was quite sophisticated and had co-routines as part of the language. There were a few compilers for the PC, including JPI Topspeed Modula-2 and a shareware one called Fitted Software Tools Modula-2.
I had the shareware one, and it taught me good programming style. I had done a bit of C previously, but Modula-2 taught me about structure, strong typing and encapsulation. It made me think hard.
There are Free and free Modula-2 compilers still available.
Intel have been hastily cobbling together scraps to try to compete with AMD. intel quad cores are not. They are two dual cores in a package.
Intel are only ahead by virtue of the fact that they've been able to do a die shrink before AMD.
Everything else about intel processors sucks. Just look at the price pressures AMD's competition has put on intel. Look at all the bugs (with no known workarounds) in recent intel processors because they've had to rush them out the door to compete.
AMD have been ahead since 1999 when the Athlon came out. intel dropped the ball for PHB reasons (itanic) and they still haven't caught up.
Do you know how to read? Read some books about CPU design. Then read some prices.
The Opteron (Athlon/Phenom) has the better interconnect, and came out 5 years ago. Intel *might* be bringing out a competitor this year. Or maybe next,
AMD processors scale, since you get double the memory bandwidth with double the processors in a system. Intel's are still choking on a 1980's vintage front side bus. Back in the 90's, AMD had a cross-bar switch. Now they have NUMA.
From what I can see, a Q6600 is 2.4HGz. Mind you, it has 8MB of cache, which helps it along quite a bit, but only if you have one of them in a system.
Would a dual Q660 beat a dual Phenom 9850? OK, it will be called an "Opteron" when it's available next month.
Of course, intel would really like you to buy itanic for multiprocessor systems.
Years of experience with intel, AMD and UltraSPARC systems have taught me that intel processors look and feel impressive on single-user single-tasking jobs. When you add tasks and users, the performance falls away.
But, hey, intel have the brand name and the catchy adverts.
Indeed. AMD has superior chip technology to intel. So what if intel's 6 months ahead with process size, AMD has the better architecture, 5 years better than intel.
I thought all the backing music was done on digital audio workstations by the record company producers anyway. No actual session musicians involved. This just streamlines the process a bit, giving a bigger profit margin.
Itanic crashed, burned and sank against the rocks of the compiler tech not being able to keep up
There is a fundamental flaw in the itanic design philosophy that no compiler will ever be able to make up for. There are some optimisations that have to be done at run time. They can't be done at compile time. itanic was conceived out of 1970's supercomputer research before out-of-order, speculative execution, dynamic branch prediction RISC processors had been invented.
There was in itanic fore-runner back in the 80s that suffered from all the same problems. Somehow, the crackpots persuaded the PHBs at HP and intel that it was the Way Forward.
itanic style designs (in much simpler form) are useful as Digital Signal Processors.
I was going to post something thoughtful and considered on the subject of the many forms of beauty. But who cares. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, especially after 6 pints of Stella and a kebab.
Real science involves performing experiments to prove theories. I say this as someone who studied Astrophysics and had a disparaging attitude towards experiments at the time.
For those of you lucky enough, and arrogant enough, to have IQs above 200, then by all means just read the books and be content in your heavenly crystal palaces.
The rest of the human race will carry on making progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not wear half-socks? I'm sure you could find two with defects in different regions to compensate, and wear two on one foot.
Young whipper-snapper. I had a 1st generation RX-7 with a Wankel engine. 120+ horsepower from a 1146cc engine.
i believe instead they disable a not-quite-functional core from their quad-processor reject bin.
Ah, good old intel trick.
Back in the day, the 486 had a built in FPU (maths co-processor) which was expensive. The 486 could execute integer instructions about twice as fast at the same clock speed as the 386 (which didn't have a maths co-processor built in).
So, to compete with Apple, Atari (Falcon) and Acorn (Archimedes), intel launched the 486SX, which was a 486 with the broken maths co-processor disabled.
Now, there was a 386SX. The 386 was 32-bit internally and externally. The 386SX (1988?) was hobbled to have a 16-bit internal data bus and 24-bit address bus externally much like the Motorola 68000 from about 1981 (in Macs, Ataris, Amigas etc.) No maths on board.
So this is just business. "Nothing to see here. Move along," as it were.
Oh, and I can still get a proper quad-core AMD cheaper than intel's Frankenstein offering of two dual cores sewn together, so who cares?
there's this cool thing called modules. you should read about them.
Yes, I've written a couple. Some parts of the kernel are enabled/disabled by a compile-time option. They are bigger than modules. Part of the infrastructure.
I do build rocket engines, both professionally and as a hobby.
Is building your own rocket engine hard? I mean, making sure it doesn't melt or explode?
I still compile my own kernels and it's quite time consuming, but it'll be worth it to turn these features off. I'm sure all the major distros will offer kernel packages with these misfeatures disabled.
Well, I'll take your word for it. "Obviously all three change in the process," which is quite correct.
To good approximation, ion engines add energy, not momentum or velocity, to the particles they accelerate.
How did you get +5 Informative spouting drivel of this kind?
You have the source, so get coding.
However, one particular feature of Ada seems more suited to current hardware than other languages: it was designed to allow many computers/CPUs to communicate via the rendezvous. I don't believe that C/C++, Pascal/Delphi, or any of the most commonly used languages can say that.
Back in the late 80's/early 90's there was a descendant of Pascal called Modula-2 which was quite sophisticated and had co-routines as part of the language. There were a few compilers for the PC, including JPI Topspeed Modula-2 and a shareware one called Fitted Software Tools Modula-2.
I had the shareware one, and it taught me good programming style. I had done a bit of C previously, but Modula-2 taught me about structure, strong typing and encapsulation. It made me think hard.
There are Free and free Modula-2 compilers still available.
Unfortunately, "regular folk" who are interested in celebrity affairs, plasitc surgery and drug abuse ,pay for physics experiments.
It's impossible to convince them how important such experiments are, so we need to patronise them.
They're too busy watching TV to care.
Not at all.
Intel have been hastily cobbling together scraps to try to compete with AMD. intel quad cores are not. They are two dual cores in a package.
Intel are only ahead by virtue of the fact that they've been able to do a die shrink before AMD.
Everything else about intel processors sucks. Just look at the price pressures AMD's competition has put on intel. Look at all the bugs (with no known workarounds) in recent intel processors because they've had to rush them out the door to compete.
AMD have been ahead since 1999 when the Athlon came out. intel dropped the ball for PHB reasons (itanic) and they still haven't caught up.
Do you know how to read? Read some books about CPU design. Then read some prices.
The Opteron (Athlon/Phenom) has the better interconnect, and came out 5 years ago. Intel *might* be bringing out a competitor this year. Or maybe next,
AMD processors scale, since you get double the memory bandwidth with double the processors in a system. Intel's are still choking on a 1980's vintage front side bus. Back in the 90's, AMD had a cross-bar switch. Now they have NUMA.
From what I can see, a Q6600 is 2.4HGz. Mind you, it has 8MB of cache, which helps it along quite a bit, but only if you have one of them in a system.
Would a dual Q660 beat a dual Phenom 9850? OK, it will be called an "Opteron" when it's available next month.
Of course, intel would really like you to buy itanic for multiprocessor systems.
Years of experience with intel, AMD and UltraSPARC systems have taught me that intel processors look and feel impressive on single-user single-tasking jobs. When you add tasks and users, the performance falls away.
But, hey, intel have the brand name and the catchy adverts.
Indeed. AMD has superior chip technology to intel. So what if intel's 6 months ahead with process size, AMD has the better architecture, 5 years better than intel.
The great thing about being tone deaf is that you can sing along to absolutely anything and it always sounds great. I do my singing in the car.
I thought all the backing music was done on digital audio workstations by the record company producers anyway. No actual session musicians involved. This just streamlines the process a bit, giving a bigger profit margin.
Does it really make sense to drag yourself out of a gravity well only to throw yourself into another?
Sometimes I think it doesn't make sense to drag myself out of bed in the morning only to fall back into it at night.
However, we are human beings, and, as the saying goes, we are all lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars.
They've changed that now. We have chip and PIN.
Add Royal Bank of Scotland to your list. They don't allow seamonkey, though.
Makes you wish you lived in Freedom, doesn't it?
Itanic crashed, burned and sank against the rocks of the compiler tech not being able to keep up
There is a fundamental flaw in the itanic design philosophy that no compiler will ever be able to make up for. There are some optimisations that have to be done at run time. They can't be done at compile time. itanic was conceived out of 1970's supercomputer research before out-of-order, speculative execution, dynamic branch prediction RISC processors had been invented.
There was in itanic fore-runner back in the 80s that suffered from all the same problems. Somehow, the crackpots persuaded the PHBs at HP and intel that it was the Way Forward.
itanic style designs (in much simpler form) are useful as Digital Signal Processors.
I was going to post something thoughtful and considered on the subject of the many forms of beauty. But who cares. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, especially after 6 pints of Stella and a kebab.
Real science involves performing experiments to prove theories. I say this as someone who studied Astrophysics and had a disparaging attitude towards experiments at the time.
For those of you lucky enough, and arrogant enough, to have IQs above 200, then by all means just read the books and be content in your heavenly crystal palaces.
The rest of the human race will carry on making progress.
Ooh Betty! I've wet my trousers.
As my mother used to say about C++, "A trouble shared is a trouble doubled!"