Why is it that every graphics card posts has to have at least ten of these posts? Not everyone is like you.
Your 6600 performs massively slower then a 7800gtx or even a 6800gtx(or ultra or whatever the high end of that generation was called). You might be fine with it but there are those with more money that care a bit more about graphics quality.
Then there are those like me who don't need even a 6600, i run my games fine with an old radeon 9500. That doesn't mean i can't imagine those that may want to run higher res with 8xaf 4xaa or whatever the hell else they like to run.
It's not the sheer amount of bill's money thats causing irs issues. It's the complicated nature of his finances with so much money in so many places doing so many things.
I stopped playing the game back in mid december. I'm not sure how i'm addicted to a game I no longer play.
there are few activities i don't spend more then ten hours on. Unless it is something truly trivial. I enjoy gaming and if i find a game i liked i will more then likely spend more then ten of the 168 hours of so availabel in the week to do so. I'm also a full time student... That takes up quite a bit more time then gaming. I also have a part time job in which i work twenty hours.
The ony thing i can think of that i spend less time doing is truly trivial like eating food or something. There are few things i "do" for enjoyment that can be fulfilling if I spend a worthless amount fo time on. The only thing I regret doing now is my part time job... i've sapped all the experience I can from that job and now everything is simply boring and repeaticuous as wow has become.
It's clear that most of slashdot is crowded with casuals.. But uh.. 4 hours for 3 days a week is um not a whole lot no matter how ou look at it.
Join a medium-high pop server and find a guild that only raids on weekends. Or join a massive guild where they don't need all of their 90 members every day for 40 man raids.
Will not have been bored at endgame already... Few people can go lvl 60 faster then 15 days (thats 15x24 gameplayed hours, which is 360 hours). You have numerous classes to explore and there's tons of dungeons to explore after your lvl 60 as well. BRD, LBRS, UBRS, Stratholme, Scholomance, Dire Mauls 3 wings.
After your done with that there is much more casuals can do. IF they love the 1-59 experience they can make a new class. A new faction, try a different server type...
I personally hated grinding 1-60. I did quests and hung out with friends but most of the time it felt like a goddamn grind because it is a grind.
Also you make it out that all casuals dont' care about epics and just wnat some form of progression. HEll, spending some time in the wow general boards is all you need to know thats not true. I've seen countless people want epics of raid caliber not just from 5 man content but single man too (from a mmorpg...sigh).
Raiding dungeons can be thrilling and just 4 hours a day consistently for at least 3-4 days a week can give you significant results. Back when our guild had trouble fielding people we conquered all of molten core minus ragnaros just raiding 2-3 days a week. We conquered him when we started raiding 4 days a week. The guild has already killed nefarion now btw.
Needing to play 8 hours a day every day is a huge exaggeration.
It's been quite some time and I really don't see microsoft wielding anywhere near as much power as before. 8 years ago windows was dominant and almost necessary for most computers. This is not true anymore, sure ms is on more desktops then not BUT the competition isn't hindered much by that fact anymore.
What's stopping them from taking advantage of a free and powerful OS like linux. Many business and goverment offices can easily run on linux free of charge. With such an alternative I don't see how MS is monopolizing anything over there. It's their choice if they want to go ms. I know the general dislike and disgust of microsoft is great here but it almost seems like the EU might just be badgering a non EU company.
The way I see it... either google censors and china allows the site to go through the great firewall or the site is blocked entirely by the "People's" Republic.
Their are only two possibilities the goverment of china will allow. A censored google or no google. I agree that googles actions are neither brave nor righteous. But they aren't evil or wrong in any case.
Good god please rtfa people... 9.9 out of ten people are totally misinterpretting things, thats based on +5 comments. Even for slashdot this is extreme.
This method does not lower performance, performance of the cpu is DIRECTLY based on clock rate not voltage. The higher the voltage the higher clock rate your cpu can operate. However, manufacturers leave a bit of leeway on the voltage rate.
Processors are made in batches. Not all processors even if they are from the same batch or same line will perform equally. After testing a processor line the manufacturers will rate them and set them at a higher voltage requirement just to be safe.
Manufacturers will often (as amd did a lot of back in the day, which made overclocking popular but i'm sure intel does it too) sell more capable chips at a lower speed rating then they are capable of running to meet market demand.
Because of these two reasons there is a good chance you can run your processor at a lower voltage (the decrease in voltage reduces power usage by a square for processors) then it is rated at. This is true even if the processor is using something like speed step or anything that comes from the manufacturers that throttles down the voltage and clock rate simultaneously.
Your cpu may throttle down to 800mhz and 1.1 voltage when it's using the lowest cpu power. However, there is a chance that it may run at 1.0 voltage as well, this often scales to the high end as well. 0.1 may not sound like much of a decrease in power requirements but the current drawn in the end is not linearly decreased.
The purpose of the article seems to be to find the minimum voltage your processor will run with 100% accuracy. Your mileage may vary but you should still see a reduced power requirement if your willing to spend the time testing (which can be set when you go to bed =P).
UBRS is simply too easy and requires very little if any strategy. You don't need ts/vent to beat it, you just need coordination and knowledge of how a certain boss fight goes. UBRS was pathetically easy, all you have are generic mobs that hit hard and aggro based on the global rules of teh game.
You basically have tanks grab aggro and take damage, the damage dealers do their part, and the healers heal. Mobs rarely if ever have any special abilities. You can use that strategy and clear the entire zone.
MC is somewhat similarily boring and easy but it still requires some coordination and has more special npc moves and aggro effects. It's clear that blizzard is moving away from that simplicity in all new raid dungeons whether its 10, 20, or 40 man.
Most workers in unskilled (so to speak) labor get around that much. Infact they probably get paid more then inner city jobs. Most inner city jobs barely pay 6.50 per hour before taxes. Also i've lived in ny and even if you live outside of manhattan like in queens or something renting an apartment costs a huge deal more (2-3x more) then in rural areas.
Look at the grandparent of your post... I basically said steve probably showed a test result in which intel was probably already stronger and you just reinforced it.
I did learn something new though... i thought the g5 design was a great leap ahead of the g4 but i guess i was wrong. However the overall system with the g5 especially around the same price range of their peaks (high end vs. high end, and low end vs. low end) is still a good deal more superior. Comparing a whole system with a 1ghz g4 and a 2 ghz g5 is pretty uh... crazy when you consider the clock rate difference and the chipset/memory interface.
Note to self... mac guys are vicous... never talk down steve jobs with perceived common sense (common sense for computer nerds that is!) without absolute proof or risk get modded down to hell!
I personally thought it was common sense that the intel dual core processors were not 2-3x then the last generation of g5 processors. Here is why:
1)Intel's dualcore on pc has been less efficient then amd's. AMD's dual core at best came to about 70-80% efficiency. Intel's is worse so your not definately not getting 2x the performance. 2)The PPC970 (or whatever the latest version of the G5 was) by ibm is hella more ipc then the p4 and is probably near that of the yonah which is core used in the new dual core chips for apples. 3)Ars Technica (cpu analyzation gods of the interweb said so a week ago and the article was posted on this site). 4) This article supports that theory: http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabte st1/index.php Even among cpu heavy tests (filtration ones) we are seeing a increase of 1.84x on the best test. It's pretty safe to say that the average performance increase is not 2-3x, eh?
Also it seems one of my grandchilds (thread wise! i got no real kids!) of the modded down post mentioned his G4 laptop. Well that certainly is interesting but the G4 is vastly inferior to the G5 so that is expected. Not to mention numerous chipset and ram improvements to go along with it.
Um, it's pretty safe to say that even in pure cpu performance the intel processor is NOT 2-3x faster then the G5's overall.
Steve probably just showed just one category of a processor benchmark where intel exceeded it and probably played around a bit more with it to make it look better.
The pentium-m processors are incredibly power efficient and perform very well. Sure there desktops are absolutely horrible from the Northwood to the Prescott core (and perhaps some new cores since i've stopped paying attention to what intel releases on the desktop now) but that doesn't exclude the fact that they do infact have one of the best, if not THE best solution for notebooks.
Err... you mean mhz? Going away from the netburst architecture intel would shoot themselves on the foot. A 2.0 ghz pentium-m can outperform a 3.2ghz p4 in many cases or come very close in others.
Consumers would think a 2.2 ghz p-m type core to be inferior to a 3.0ghz p4. Thats not a correct indication of "speed" either. Hell you can't simply just say the word speed anymore. Theres so many things to consider.
Most battles occur among parties that cannot talk it out or they've already gone past that phase. Goodluck getting them to play a video game to decide the dispute. Whether the video game is backed by a realworld robot or not it just won't happen.
Pardon me for sounding angry (most likely because I am). But the parents post above is absolute trash. Theres a reason amd got the market back and it's not soley because they had a decent performance rating system so as not to confuse customers. The new intel naming system is utterly ridiculous.
The athlon naming system is based on benchmark performance on how well their old athlon tbird would perform at that respective mhz. For example, a 2800+ would theoretically perform as well as a 2.8ghz tbird. This is not an attempt by amd to skew data.
What consumers want in the end is performance. That is why amd has been gaining marketshare. They've been providing processors that perform well and use less heat then their intel desktop counterparts. AMD's prices have also been a far greater value on everything but the highest end processors where they are similarily priced to intel.
If amd simply rated slower processors with higher numbers then they'd be finished a long time ago. Even if the mhz doesn't increase in many cases the core improvements are enough for a ratings increase and realworld benchmarks support it.
I can argue on much of your "history" too but it's late and i'm tired.
I personally have the option of telling my computer to go sleep and then having it hybernate after a bit of time but I've never used that option. It's mostly because i don't want it to. I run different stuff at times.
Combined with the options in the windows control panel which lets you control 5 events or so for two different modes (on battery or plugged into wall) I'm pretty damn satisfied. You can control monitor switch off timing, turning off the hard disk, sleep mode, and hibernation easiyl from there (hrm that was only 4 settings! not 5).
And if your skilled enough (like most slashdot nerds!) you can customize the little details of sleep mode and stuff from the bios.
I'm pretty sure i can get my battery hogging old hp laptop (yeah yeah it's hp but i got it cheap so there!) to last a few days in sleep mode.
Slashdot Mirror
It was purely +4 underrated. Underrated and overrated don't show on descriptions.
Why is it that every graphics card posts has to have at least ten of these posts? Not everyone is like you.
Your 6600 performs massively slower then a 7800gtx or even a 6800gtx(or ultra or whatever the high end of that generation was called). You might be fine with it but there are those with more money that care a bit more about graphics quality.
Then there are those like me who don't need even a 6600, i run my games fine with an old radeon 9500. That doesn't mean i can't imagine those that may want to run higher res with 8xaf 4xaa or whatever the hell else they like to run.
It's their money...
It's not the sheer amount of bill's money thats causing irs issues. It's the complicated nature of his finances with so much money in so many places doing so many things.
I stopped playing the game back in mid december. I'm not sure how i'm addicted to a game I no longer play.
there are few activities i don't spend more then ten hours on. Unless it is something truly trivial. I enjoy gaming and if i find a game i liked i will more then likely spend more then ten of the 168 hours of so availabel in the week to do so. I'm also a full time student... That takes up quite a bit more time then gaming. I also have a part time job in which i work twenty hours.
The ony thing i can think of that i spend less time doing is truly trivial like eating food or something. There are few things i "do" for enjoyment that can be fulfilling if I spend a worthless amount fo time on. The only thing I regret doing now is my part time job... i've sapped all the experience I can from that job and now everything is simply boring and repeaticuous as wow has become.
It's clear that most of slashdot is crowded with casuals.. But uh.. 4 hours for 3 days a week is um not a whole lot no matter how ou look at it.
Join a medium-high pop server and find a guild that only raids on weekends. Or join a massive guild where they don't need all of their 90 members every day for 40 man raids.
Will not have been bored at endgame already... Few people can go lvl 60 faster then 15 days (thats 15x24 gameplayed hours, which is 360 hours). You have numerous classes to explore and there's tons of dungeons to explore after your lvl 60 as well. BRD, LBRS, UBRS, Stratholme, Scholomance, Dire Mauls 3 wings.
After your done with that there is much more casuals can do. IF they love the 1-59 experience they can make a new class. A new faction, try a different server type...
I personally hated grinding 1-60. I did quests and hung out with friends but most of the time it felt like a goddamn grind because it is a grind.
Also you make it out that all casuals dont' care about epics and just wnat some form of progression. HEll, spending some time in the wow general boards is all you need to know thats not true. I've seen countless people want epics of raid caliber not just from 5 man content but single man too (from a mmorpg...sigh).
Raiding dungeons can be thrilling and just 4 hours a day consistently for at least 3-4 days a week can give you significant results. Back when our guild had trouble fielding people we conquered all of molten core minus ragnaros just raiding 2-3 days a week. We conquered him when we started raiding 4 days a week. The guild has already killed nefarion now btw.
Needing to play 8 hours a day every day is a huge exaggeration.
It's been quite some time and I really don't see microsoft wielding anywhere near as much power as before. 8 years ago windows was dominant and almost necessary for most computers. This is not true anymore, sure ms is on more desktops then not BUT the competition isn't hindered much by that fact anymore.
What's stopping them from taking advantage of a free and powerful OS like linux. Many business and goverment offices can easily run on linux free of charge. With such an alternative I don't see how MS is monopolizing anything over there. It's their choice if they want to go ms. I know the general dislike and disgust of microsoft is great here but it almost seems like the EU might just be badgering a non EU company.
The way I see it... either google censors and china allows the site to go through the great firewall or the site is blocked entirely by the "People's" Republic.
Their are only two possibilities the goverment of china will allow. A censored google or no google. I agree that googles actions are neither brave nor righteous. But they aren't evil or wrong in any case.
I'd agree with you on needing so called perfectly earthlike conditions for life but... -220c is cutting it...
It's so close to absolute zero that most chemical reactions dont' happen there. The chance of life forming is probably next to nothing.
Good god please rtfa people... 9.9 out of ten people are totally misinterpretting things, thats based on +5 comments. Even for slashdot this is extreme.
This method does not lower performance, performance of the cpu is DIRECTLY based on clock rate not voltage. The higher the voltage the higher clock rate your cpu can operate. However, manufacturers leave a bit of leeway on the voltage rate.
Processors are made in batches. Not all processors even if they are from the same batch or same line will perform equally. After testing a processor line the manufacturers will rate them and set them at a higher voltage requirement just to be safe.
Manufacturers will often (as amd did a lot of back in the day, which made overclocking popular but i'm sure intel does it too) sell more capable chips at a lower speed rating then they are capable of running to meet market demand.
Because of these two reasons there is a good chance you can run your processor at a lower voltage (the decrease in voltage reduces power usage by a square for processors) then it is rated at. This is true even if the processor is using something like speed step or anything that comes from the manufacturers that throttles down the voltage and clock rate simultaneously.
Your cpu may throttle down to 800mhz and 1.1 voltage when it's using the lowest cpu power. However, there is a chance that it may run at 1.0 voltage as well, this often scales to the high end as well. 0.1 may not sound like much of a decrease in power requirements but the current drawn in the end is not linearly decreased.
The purpose of the article seems to be to find the minimum voltage your processor will run with 100% accuracy. Your mileage may vary but you should still see a reduced power requirement if your willing to spend the time testing (which can be set when you go to bed =P).
UBRS is simply too easy and requires very little if any strategy. You don't need ts/vent to beat it, you just need coordination and knowledge of how a certain boss fight goes. UBRS was pathetically easy, all you have are generic mobs that hit hard and aggro based on the global rules of teh game.
You basically have tanks grab aggro and take damage, the damage dealers do their part, and the healers heal. Mobs rarely if ever have any special abilities. You can use that strategy and clear the entire zone.
MC is somewhat similarily boring and easy but it still requires some coordination and has more special npc moves and aggro effects. It's clear that blizzard is moving away from that simplicity in all new raid dungeons whether its 10, 20, or 40 man.
Most workers in unskilled (so to speak) labor get around that much. Infact they probably get paid more then inner city jobs. Most inner city jobs barely pay 6.50 per hour before taxes. Also i've lived in ny and even if you live outside of manhattan like in queens or something renting an apartment costs a huge deal more (2-3x more) then in rural areas.
Look at the grandparent of your post... I basically said steve probably showed a test result in which intel was probably already stronger and you just reinforced it.
I did learn something new though... i thought the g5 design was a great leap ahead of the g4 but i guess i was wrong. However the overall system with the g5 especially around the same price range of their peaks (high end vs. high end, and low end vs. low end) is still a good deal more superior. Comparing a whole system with a 1ghz g4 and a 2 ghz g5 is pretty uh... crazy when you consider the clock rate difference and the chipset/memory interface.
The export speed is aided by the fact that the memory interface and the actual memory is quite a bit faster.
I don't even think author wanted this to be rated funny. He is quite correct and is correcting the pointing out a flaw in the grandparent's post.
Note to self... mac guys are vicous... never talk down steve jobs with perceived common sense (common sense for computer nerds that is!) without absolute proof or risk get modded down to hell!
e st1/index.php
I personally thought it was common sense that the intel dual core processors were not 2-3x then the last generation of g5 processors. Here is why:
1)Intel's dualcore on pc has been less efficient then amd's. AMD's dual core at best came to about 70-80% efficiency. Intel's is worse so your not definately not getting 2x the performance.
2)The PPC970 (or whatever the latest version of the G5 was) by ibm is hella more ipc then the p4 and is probably near that of the yonah which is core used in the new dual core chips for apples.
3)Ars Technica (cpu analyzation gods of the interweb said so a week ago and the article was posted on this site).
4) This article supports that theory:
http://www.macworld.com/2006/01/features/imaclabt
Even among cpu heavy tests (filtration ones) we are seeing a increase of 1.84x on the best test. It's pretty safe to say that the average performance increase is not 2-3x, eh?
Also it seems one of my grandchilds (thread wise! i got no real kids!) of the modded down post mentioned his G4 laptop. Well that certainly is interesting but the G4 is vastly inferior to the G5 so that is expected. Not to mention numerous chipset and ram improvements to go along with it.
Wow... I got modded troll with responses like this? I thought it would be common sense.
A) I was talking about the G5 in my comparison, the g4 laptops are irrelevant.
b) Dual core != 2x performance, not even close.
Um, it's pretty safe to say that even in pure cpu performance the intel processor is NOT 2-3x faster then the G5's overall.
Steve probably just showed just one category of a processor benchmark where intel exceeded it and probably played around a bit more with it to make it look better.
How'd i get modded redundant? I made my post when there were like 20 comments on this and nothing about the pentium-m.
The pentium-m processors are incredibly power efficient and perform very well. Sure there desktops are absolutely horrible from the Northwood to the Prescott core (and perhaps some new cores since i've stopped paying attention to what intel releases on the desktop now) but that doesn't exclude the fact that they do infact have one of the best, if not THE best solution for notebooks.
Err... you mean mhz? Going away from the netburst architecture intel would shoot themselves on the foot. A 2.0 ghz pentium-m can outperform a 3.2ghz p4 in many cases or come very close in others.
Consumers would think a 2.2 ghz p-m type core to be inferior to a 3.0ghz p4. Thats not a correct indication of "speed" either. Hell you can't simply just say the word speed anymore. Theres so many things to consider.
Most battles occur among parties that cannot talk it out or they've already gone past that phase. Goodluck getting them to play a video game to decide the dispute. Whether the video game is backed by a realworld robot or not it just won't happen.
They may have changed it i guess... but i was pretty sure they said in comparison to the tbird way back in the day of the first athlon xp's.
Pardon me for sounding angry (most likely because I am). But the parents post above is absolute trash. Theres a reason amd got the market back and it's not soley because they had a decent performance rating system so as not to confuse customers. The new intel naming system is utterly ridiculous.
The athlon naming system is based on benchmark performance on how well their old athlon tbird would perform at that respective mhz. For example, a 2800+ would theoretically perform as well as a 2.8ghz tbird. This is not an attempt by amd to skew data.
What consumers want in the end is performance. That is why amd has been gaining marketshare. They've been providing processors that perform well and use less heat then their intel desktop counterparts. AMD's prices have also been a far greater value on everything but the highest end processors where they are similarily priced to intel.
If amd simply rated slower processors with higher numbers then they'd be finished a long time ago. Even if the mhz doesn't increase in many cases the core improvements are enough for a ratings increase and realworld benchmarks support it.
I can argue on much of your "history" too but it's late and i'm tired.
I personally have the option of telling my computer to go sleep and then having it hybernate after a bit of time but I've never used that option. It's mostly because i don't want it to. I run different stuff at times. Combined with the options in the windows control panel which lets you control 5 events or so for two different modes (on battery or plugged into wall) I'm pretty damn satisfied. You can control monitor switch off timing, turning off the hard disk, sleep mode, and hibernation easiyl from there (hrm that was only 4 settings! not 5). And if your skilled enough (like most slashdot nerds!) you can customize the little details of sleep mode and stuff from the bios. I'm pretty sure i can get my battery hogging old hp laptop (yeah yeah it's hp but i got it cheap so there!) to last a few days in sleep mode.