I'm with you on the freedom of speech thing there. In fact, I'd like you to feel free to clarify and back up your claim that "A growing number of pediatricians have apprehension about vaccinations due to complications." What is the number now, as a percentage of all pediatricians? What information can you provide about the credentials and credibility of these pediatricians? What is the actual growth rate?
Why do we need to "dissipate" momentum? Momentum is proportional to mass and velocity. Bullets and fragments from grenades tend to have much less mass than the persons or vehicles they hit. So the velocity change of the target will be minimal and, even if not, who cares? So what if I go flying ten feet or whatever? Sure beats being punctured or ripped into pieces.
The high end is much, much higher than 333Mhz -- more like 1.8 GHz for system memory. That link is for newegg's SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 15000). But besides that, consider cache speeds, which this is more likely to replace.
It can be. Just as ECC is an optional, additional circuit plus some redundant bits in SRAM, DRAM, SDRAM, etc. ECC could be added to any conceivable type of storage. Given the much lower failure rate of MRAM (almost zero soft error rate) I don't think it'd be worth the overhead though.
At 250MHz I don't think MRAM will be replacing your system SDRAM anytime soon (since it's probably 2-3x that if you have a relatively recent system.) But your point is interesting -- when the ASICs and chipsets all over your mobo and peripherals have MRAM in them, the forensics guys will have a field day reading that data you thought wasn't being recorded at all:)
Too bad the summary had to mention "instant-on PC" because most of the responses so far are about "No way" or "my kewl macbook does that already" and such. The biggest advantage of MRAM over SRAM/eDRAM is not that it retains data without power (though that's nice too), it's that MRAM about as fast as current eDRAM and half the power. And even zero power when not used (while retaining most recent data) is a bonus.
This is a huge plus for ASICs and other chips (ASSPs, COTS, etc.) that have a lot of memory on them (which is most of them.) It allows more memory on a chip without expensive packages/die sizes for thermal management or complex, time-consuming power management systems. LSI (large-scale integrated) circuits use a lot of memory, and power consumption is a huge problem, so cutting that in half will enable a lot of products to be made that wouldn't have been possible/affordable before, and a lot of other products will get to market faster.
MRAM has been around for a while, but the relatively slow speed made it unsuitable for most applications. Now it will be great enabling technology that will ripple through many products that use semiconductor devices.
[So] your child has never disobeyed a rule you've given him
He didn't say that at all. He made a lot of valid points in my opinion, but you just ignored them all and made up something out of thin air to disagree with. That's odd.
And if I do find a box of Twinkies under my kid's bed [after telling him not to eat the] then I'm damn well going to deal with it... and I won't need any police assistance
Hmm, it's almost like the poster is explaining that he would deal with disobedience without police assistance, but somehow to you this means he's claiming his child has never been disobedient? Are you, um, developmentally challenged?
If anyone else is curious about what "EAD" stands for, it's Entertainment Analysis and Development. Wikipedia has more info. Maybe I'm just an old man who should know that acronym since everyone else does, but didn't, and I think almost all acronyms should be defined on first use in such articles.
The update will also fix the 'widescreen issue' that caused some consternation just after the title's release.
What? The official word from 2K was that the aspect ratio was "as designed" and there was no problem to fix. What an odd backpedal to come now after all that screaming and yelling (and banning and post deleting) on the forums. I recall people were pissed, but 2K said the FOV in widescreen was as-intended, and they just chose to add "extra" vertical FOV in non-widescreen mode instead of the opposite (and typical) option of extending the horizontal FOV in widescreen vs. non.
It doesn't really matter to me though since I get no sound after the intro in the demo (even after every "fix" known to the 2K forums and google) so I guess I saved myself $50 -- I was looking forward to this game though. Maybe by the time that issues is fixed it'll be cheaper:)
If you can calculate the power with P=V^2/R and everybody knows R, why bother to provide I?
If "everybody" knows the effective R for every different device then why don't you go ahead and tell it to us so we can calculate the power for this device?
(I'm also an EE, this is my area, and you're oversimplifying to the point of error, as has been explained many times to you and elsewhere in this thread.)
It's almost pointless to convert this measure into watts, as so many other variables change in tandem. The new part has different bandwidth, different latency, different leakage, different dynamic consumption. There's no simple number that gets you apples vs apples. Most of the time, however, voltage is fair proxy. Peak consumption figures are mostly worthless from an efficiency perspective, except for sizing your power and cooling requirements.
Why does it have to be just one "simple" number? How about give me Watts, bandwidth, and size (bits)? If you have to have just one number, multiply the ones you want higher and divide by the one you want lower (i.e., Gbps*bits/W or whatever.)
Did you just make that up? Lower voltage does not equal (or even imply) lower resistance in "chip terms" or any other. Voltage has no impact on resistance. And it's not very common to hear anyone (with a clue) speak of "chip resistance" since it's a rather meaningless concept that provides the same info as voltage and current in a more roundabout way for no good reason.
Really, your statement is worse than not inaccurate, it's the opposite of accurate. Devices that use lower voltage tend to have higher currents (for the same function/efficiency.) Although the overall power tends to be lower, it's not as much lower as it would be if V were reduced and current were unchanged. Were this not true, you'd see power consumption for a line of devices fall with the square of their voltages. Of course this is not the case, since 1.5V devices don't tend to consume less than 1% of similar-function 5V devices. (Part of the reason is that lower voltage requires thinner gate dielectrics, which increases leakage current, and the smaller features of lower-voltage devices include thinner wires, with more resistance, which require more current for the same performance.)
That did drive me nuts, of course, because it was so wrong. Yet, the use of g/mil^2 to measure mass per area (grams per (0.001 x 0.001) inches.) doesn't bother me at all.
No, reducing voltage only reduces current for the same resistance (which means the same type of device.) I'm pretty sure this "20% more efficient" claim is a comparison to previous generation devices, which means it's not the same device, or the same resistance. You can't just drop the voltage on a device and get the same performance and lower power! In general, operating at lower voltages requires thinner gate oxides (which increases leakage current) and requires stronger-drive transistors (which requires more current, eating up some of the gains from lower voltage.)
You mean across different devices? As much as current and power consumption do, which is to say, a lot. Many orders of magnitude. That's kind of a strange question that belies a weak understanding of electronics. We don't really speak of the "resistance" of a chip, because that's pretty much meaningless. You could calculate an "effective resistance" by R = V / I, but it's not very meaningful or useful to do so.
I dunno, you tell me -- slashdot user who took 6 units at a junior college and works 20 hours a week at Best Buy -- what *aren't* you qualified to talk about?
As for me, I'm an EE so I'm qualified to talk about anything that matters;)
The issue is that the current is variable in a complex semiconductor device. It changes as the device switches.
Which is why peak power (calculated as voltage * peak current) is usually reported. Not really much of an issue, since who cares about minimum current/power or how each exactly change over time? I guess average may be nice, but peak is the best. And voltage is useless without some measure of current also, as you mention in the latter half of your post.
No, volts are not a good metric of efficiency. Voltage and current would be, but that's because Volts * Amps = Watts. If you need a real example to understand why, consider a 1.5V chip that draws 3 Amps and a 5V chip that draws 100mA, then tell me which is more "efficient" and how you'd know that from the voltages alone.
Samsung said the new chips consume 1.5 volts, making them about 20 percent more efficient than GDDR 3 chips.
What poor science reporting. Nothing "consumes volts." Volts measure voltage -- difference in potential. Devices consume Joules -- units of energy. Also acceptable would be Watts -- energy per unit time. It would have been really nice to be given the Watts per Bandwidth per Size (W/Gbps/bits), but I realize that's asking way too much of the Times.
(He knows what the GP meant, I'm sure. But if you read his question again, you might note how the broken grammar implies memorizing Asians. Hence the joke. Which you missed. Which made a whooshing sound as it flew over your head.)
Good god man, please try to get over it. I've never seen anyone so butthurt about a game. If anything, it seems you have developed some kind of "personality disorder" because of someone that didn't play a game the way you wanted them to. Christ, get a grip!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you on the freedom of speech thing there. In fact, I'd like you to feel free to clarify and back up your claim that "A growing number of pediatricians have apprehension about vaccinations due to complications." What is the number now, as a percentage of all pediatricians? What information can you provide about the credentials and credibility of these pediatricians? What is the actual growth rate?
I'm seriously interested.
Why do we need to "dissipate" momentum? Momentum is proportional to mass and velocity. Bullets and fragments from grenades tend to have much less mass than the persons or vehicles they hit. So the velocity change of the target will be minimal and, even if not, who cares? So what if I go flying ten feet or whatever? Sure beats being punctured or ripped into pieces.
The high end is much, much higher than 333Mhz -- more like 1.8 GHz for system memory. That link is for newegg's SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 15000). But besides that, consider cache speeds, which this is more likely to replace.
My understanding is that this MRAM can be created in the standard ASIC process. Not sure about FPGA, but I believe they're similar.
It can be. Just as ECC is an optional, additional circuit plus some redundant bits in SRAM, DRAM, SDRAM, etc. ECC could be added to any conceivable type of storage. Given the much lower failure rate of MRAM (almost zero soft error rate) I don't think it'd be worth the overhead though.
At 250MHz I don't think MRAM will be replacing your system SDRAM anytime soon (since it's probably 2-3x that if you have a relatively recent system.) But your point is interesting -- when the ASICs and chipsets all over your mobo and peripherals have MRAM in them, the forensics guys will have a field day reading that data you thought wasn't being recorded at all :)
Too bad the summary had to mention "instant-on PC" because most of the responses so far are about "No way" or "my kewl macbook does that already" and such. The biggest advantage of MRAM over SRAM/eDRAM is not that it retains data without power (though that's nice too), it's that MRAM about as fast as current eDRAM and half the power. And even zero power when not used (while retaining most recent data) is a bonus.
This is a huge plus for ASICs and other chips (ASSPs, COTS, etc.) that have a lot of memory on them (which is most of them.) It allows more memory on a chip without expensive packages/die sizes for thermal management or complex, time-consuming power management systems. LSI (large-scale integrated) circuits use a lot of memory, and power consumption is a huge problem, so cutting that in half will enable a lot of products to be made that wouldn't have been possible/affordable before, and a lot of other products will get to market faster.
MRAM has been around for a while, but the relatively slow speed made it unsuitable for most applications. Now it will be great enabling technology that will ripple through many products that use semiconductor devices.
[So] your child has never disobeyed a rule you've given him
He didn't say that at all. He made a lot of valid points in my opinion, but you just ignored them all and made up something out of thin air to disagree with. That's odd.
And if I do find a box of Twinkies under my kid's bed [after telling him not to eat the] then I'm damn well going to deal with it... and I won't need any police assistance
Hmm, it's almost like the poster is explaining that he would deal with disobedience without police assistance, but somehow to you this means he's claiming his child has never been disobedient? Are you, um, developmentally challenged?
If anyone else is curious about what "EAD" stands for, it's Entertainment Analysis and Development. Wikipedia has more info. Maybe I'm just an old man who should know that acronym since everyone else does, but didn't, and I think almost all acronyms should be defined on first use in such articles.
You must be new here.
Welcome to slashdot!
The update will also fix the 'widescreen issue' that caused some consternation just after the title's release.
:)
What? The official word from 2K was that the aspect ratio was "as designed" and there was no problem to fix. What an odd backpedal to come now after all that screaming and yelling (and banning and post deleting) on the forums. I recall people were pissed, but 2K said the FOV in widescreen was as-intended, and they just chose to add "extra" vertical FOV in non-widescreen mode instead of the opposite (and typical) option of extending the horizontal FOV in widescreen vs. non.
It doesn't really matter to me though since I get no sound after the intro in the demo (even after every "fix" known to the 2K forums and google) so I guess I saved myself $50 -- I was looking forward to this game though. Maybe by the time that issues is fixed it'll be cheaper
They can (and do) create different voltages on a chip from one higher supply voltage. No "power regulator" required.
If you can calculate the power with P=V^2/R and everybody knows R, why bother to provide I?
If "everybody" knows the effective R for every different device then why don't you go ahead and tell it to us so we can calculate the power for this device?
(I'm also an EE, this is my area, and you're oversimplifying to the point of error, as has been explained many times to you and elsewhere in this thread.)
How is this a troll, exactly?
It's almost pointless to convert this measure into watts, as so many other variables change in tandem. The new part has different bandwidth, different latency, different leakage, different dynamic consumption. There's no simple number that gets you apples vs apples. Most of the time, however, voltage is fair proxy. Peak consumption figures are mostly worthless from an efficiency perspective, except for sizing your power and cooling requirements.
Why does it have to be just one "simple" number? How about give me Watts, bandwidth, and size (bits)? If you have to have just one number, multiply the ones you want higher and divide by the one you want lower (i.e., Gbps*bits/W or whatever.)
Did you just make that up? Lower voltage does not equal (or even imply) lower resistance in "chip terms" or any other. Voltage has no impact on resistance. And it's not very common to hear anyone (with a clue) speak of "chip resistance" since it's a rather meaningless concept that provides the same info as voltage and current in a more roundabout way for no good reason.
Really, your statement is worse than not inaccurate, it's the opposite of accurate. Devices that use lower voltage tend to have higher currents (for the same function/efficiency.) Although the overall power tends to be lower, it's not as much lower as it would be if V were reduced and current were unchanged. Were this not true, you'd see power consumption for a line of devices fall with the square of their voltages. Of course this is not the case, since 1.5V devices don't tend to consume less than 1% of similar-function 5V devices. (Part of the reason is that lower voltage requires thinner gate dielectrics, which increases leakage current, and the smaller features of lower-voltage devices include thinner wires, with more resistance, which require more current for the same performance.)
That did drive me nuts, of course, because it was so wrong. Yet, the use of g/mil^2 to measure mass per area (grams per (0.001 x 0.001) inches.) doesn't bother me at all.
In short, everything you said is wrong.
No, reducing voltage only reduces current for the same resistance (which means the same type of device.) I'm pretty sure this "20% more efficient" claim is a comparison to previous generation devices, which means it's not the same device, or the same resistance. You can't just drop the voltage on a device and get the same performance and lower power! In general, operating at lower voltages requires thinner gate oxides (which increases leakage current) and requires stronger-drive transistors (which requires more current, eating up some of the gains from lower voltage.)
Sigh.
You mean across different devices? As much as current and power consumption do, which is to say, a lot. Many orders of magnitude. That's kind of a strange question that belies a weak understanding of electronics. We don't really speak of the "resistance" of a chip, because that's pretty much meaningless. You could calculate an "effective resistance" by R = V / I, but it's not very meaningful or useful to do so.
I dunno, you tell me -- slashdot user who took 6 units at a junior college and works 20 hours a week at Best Buy -- what *aren't* you qualified to talk about?
;)
As for me, I'm an EE so I'm qualified to talk about anything that matters
The issue is that the current is variable in a complex semiconductor device. It changes as the device switches.
Which is why peak power (calculated as voltage * peak current) is usually reported. Not really much of an issue, since who cares about minimum current/power or how each exactly change over time? I guess average may be nice, but peak is the best. And voltage is useless without some measure of current also, as you mention in the latter half of your post.
No, volts are not a good metric of efficiency. Voltage and current would be, but that's because Volts * Amps = Watts. If you need a real example to understand why, consider a 1.5V chip that draws 3 Amps and a 5V chip that draws 100mA, then tell me which is more "efficient" and how you'd know that from the voltages alone.
Samsung said the new chips consume 1.5 volts, making them about 20 percent more efficient than GDDR 3 chips.
What poor science reporting. Nothing "consumes volts." Volts measure voltage -- difference in potential. Devices consume Joules -- units of energy. Also acceptable would be Watts -- energy per unit time. It would have been really nice to be given the Watts per Bandwidth per Size (W/Gbps/bits), but I realize that's asking way too much of the Times.
Psst: they have beer in Japan. In kegs even. It's quite popular too.
Whoosh!
(He knows what the GP meant, I'm sure. But if you read his question again, you might note how the broken grammar implies memorizing Asians. Hence the joke. Which you missed. Which made a whooshing sound as it flew over your head.)
Good god man, please try to get over it. I've never seen anyone so butthurt about a game. If anything, it seems you have developed some kind of "personality disorder" because of someone that didn't play a game the way you wanted them to. Christ, get a grip!