He he. Living at one of the mirrors (ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu) does have its advantages. LAN speeds all the way. To bad, I'd never come near a RedHat distro. But they've got Gentoo mirrored here too, so I'm happy.
Try testing or unstable. They're misnamed, they work pretty well. Unstable is a whole lot more cutting-edge than either RedHat (except libc's for some reason) or Mandrake.
Those 30 processors (3900 watts) is the equivilent of 3 refrigerators (1200 watts each). In our house, we have two refrigerators, which doesn't seem to cause much of a problem at all. And the AC system sucks up north of 15,000 watts, which again, doesn't seem to cause much of a problem. Using the average per kW cost in the US, those 30 Itaniums use about $200 worth of electricity per month. Again, if you have 30 Itaniums, this is chicken feed.
I think you missed the point. My original point was that 100 watt incandescent lightbuls, which are all over the place and make up a majority of the lighting in one's house, uses almost as much energy as this processor. Other things, like TVs or vacuum cleaners or whatever, use a whole lot more. So in perspective, 130 watts really isn't that bad.
Currently, business computations simply do not need the power. And AI is something that is immature enough that the mainstream doesn't need it yet. But graphical applications (read: games) are the bread and butter of the high-end, and that's what sells.
Any combination of "Giga" "Processor" and "Ultra" is a stupid name for a processor. At least Itanium and Athlon are somewhat abstract. "Giga-Processor Ultra-Lite" sounds like some sort of bad throwback to '30s home appliance marketing.
Re:P4 did flop, for quite awhile
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 2
The P4 was an initial disaster for Intel--the cpu hardly anybody wanted. But it wasn't just because of its low performance and IPC, it was because of its dependence on Rdram in the beginning. A mistake which Intel has since remedied. >>>>>>>>> Um, no. The P4 was initially aimed at the high-performance market, to whom RDRAM's cost really wasn't that much of an issue. The real problem was that even with RDRAM, The P4 was slower than a cheaper Athlon. The RDRAM factor is arguable (given that RDRAM is still the fastest memory for the P4) but the P4 really took off when they jacked up the clock-speed and overtook AMD.
The fact is that for the past three years Intel has done a lot more wrong than right, stretching all the way back to the infamous re-called 1.13GHz P3--it's the first time in my memory that a shipping cpu was ever recalled by the manufacturer. >>>>>> Wow. Obviously, somebody doesn't remember the fdiv pentium. I'd hardly call the 1.13 GHz P3 infamous. They were so rare that the recall affected all of the five people who actually bought one. Besides that, and the trouble with the P4, which I referred to when I said they have had some initial problems with new products, what else have they done wrong?
In fact, it wasn't until the Northwood P4 2.53GHz variant that Intel started doing some things "right"--and that's been for only a few months now. >>>>>>>> Just because AMD was a good competitor doesn't mean that Intel wasn't doing the right things. They were working on jacking up the speeds on the P4, and that'll pay of significantly now that they've got a handle on it.
Everybody knew that the low IPC in the P4 would be made up for, eventually, in sheer clock speed--that wasn't debated as far as I can recall. >>>>>> Read up on the/. posts from that time!
What hardly anyone suspected was that AMD would be able to extend the Athlon architecture so well against Intel's Pentium architectures. Indeed, with a new stepping of the Thoroughbred core which started shipping only last week, The Athlon holds its own against the P4 and will do so up to the 3GHz level and maybe beyond. After that comes Hammer, which supposedly will start shipping at close to the MHz range where Athlon XP leaves off, ~2.4GHz. >>>> Err, most of the stuff I've seen pegs the Athlon XP at around 2 Ghz, not 2.4.
Only thing is that Hammer will be at least 25% faster than Athlon XP clock for clock, which makes it considerably faster than NOrthwood clock for clock, yet it will have no trouble scaling up in MHz. >>>>> I doubt it will have "no trouble." Due to the architecture, it simply won't be able to scale to the kind of clock-speeds the P4 will. Intel is gunning for 5+ GHz, real soon now. AMD will have a hard time keeping up.
Re:Is it just me, or is...
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Um, its a river in Oregon (you know, that state Intel is based in?) All Intel processors are codenamed after rivers. Now, your post is basically just making fun of a place name, which is actually quite offensive to the locals. Its like, "Oh, Ouagadougou, what a stupid name for a city, who thought up THAT?"
Intel bashers take note:
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'd give Intel engineers just a bit more credit than the average/. poster. Intel has been right at getting the trends for awhile now. Take the Pentium 4 for example. Everyone thought it would flop cuz it had crappy IPC. It sucked in the first several iterations (less than 2 GHz). But its quite the speed demon now, ain't it? As for Itanium, there are quite a few ways it could succeed. It has the potential for serious performance. The super-wide architecture is perfect for code like scientific processing, image processing, and 3D graphics that are nice, regular, and easy to optimize and parallize. And what kind of processing do you think is going to be popular in the future?
I've never seen a 10 watt lightbulb. A run of the mill lightbulb is about 100 watts, not much less than this processor here. And you cannot blind someone with a 100 watt lightbulb except by poking his eyes out with it.
Re:Is Intel doing the right thing?
on
Itanium Problems
·
· Score: 2
In comparison, a largish-vacuum cleaner is 12 amps, while a leaf blower is about 15 amps.
Like him or not, it takes a certain level of intelligence to get into the institutions he did (Georgetown, Yale, Oxford) without a big powerful family to sway the admissions board.
There are totally stable products that have version numbers less than 1.0, because the author wants some holy grail for the first release. While that's admirable, I think its important that version numbers give at least a general idea of the amount of faith the author has in the stability of a particular release.
In general, I think Linux version numbers tend to be as screwed up as Windows version numbers. The kernel itself, and stuff like GNOME and KDE are fine, but a lot of the secondary software is not. There are totally stable products that have 1.0 is something the author has some level of faith in.
I don't know. New driver model, kernel preemption (big one!), new block device layer, reworked VM. I think that deserves a 3.0. Those kinds of changes would have Micro$oft jacking the version up to XXX-P.
Its not just him. Take a look at Clinton. Whether or not you like his ethics or policies, you have to admit that he was genuinely smart. But he downplayed it like anything. Since when did it become bad to be smart? I *want* my president to be smarter than me. I'm not smart enough to run the country, so his ideas better be over my head.
*) No, this isn't an American bash. People all over the world are mostly clueless. In many respects, Americans are better educated then most, though it often doesn't seem that way because American pop culture tends to glorify the "common man" rather than the intellectual as is done in other countries.
The parent poster is on crack, but please do realize that the US is a far different entity than what the average clueless* citizen believes it to be. It is extremely concerened about maintaining economic superiority over the rest of the world, and a lot of its practices (like the WTO) hurt burgeoning industrial systems in developing nations just so US companies have more people to sell their products to. They do have some very bad policies that kill people just as surely (though more indirectly) as any terrorist attack. However, don't look at this as a US-bash. Every single powerful country in history has had its bad aspects. In the end, I'd say that the US's love of freedom and genuine desire to advance humanity (through technology and whatnot) outweight its bad parts, but those bad parts *are* there, and they are very real.
Slashdot Mirror
He he. Living at one of the mirrors (ftp-linux.cc.gatech.edu) does have its advantages. LAN speeds all the way. To bad, I'd never come near a RedHat distro. But they've got Gentoo mirrored here too, so I'm happy.
Hrm. RH8 seems to remind me a little bit of BeOS, only flatter. But apparently, grey is back :)
Get Freetype2 from CVS and use Postscript fonts. They've made a bunch of improvements to the PShinter to make things purdy.
Try testing or unstable. They're misnamed, they work pretty well. Unstable is a whole lot more cutting-edge than either RedHat (except libc's for some reason) or Mandrake.
Those 30 processors (3900 watts) is the equivilent of 3 refrigerators (1200 watts each). In our house, we have two refrigerators, which doesn't seem to cause much of a problem at all. And the AC system sucks up north of 15,000 watts, which again, doesn't seem to cause much of a problem. Using the average per kW cost in the US, those 30 Itaniums use about $200 worth of electricity per month. Again, if you have 30 Itaniums, this is chicken feed.
I think you missed the point. My original point was that 100 watt incandescent lightbuls, which are all over the place and make up a majority of the lighting in one's house, uses almost as much energy as this processor. Other things, like TVs or vacuum cleaners or whatever, use a whole lot more. So in perspective, 130 watts really isn't that bad.
Currently, business computations simply do not need the power. And AI is something that is immature enough that the mainstream doesn't need it yet. But graphical applications (read: games) are the bread and butter of the high-end, and that's what sells.
MS put in a screwed up implementation just to put in a checkbox feature necessary for government contracts.
Err, I meant the AMD Hammer.
Any combination of "Giga" "Processor" and "Ultra" is a stupid name for a processor. At least Itanium and Athlon are somewhat abstract. "Giga-Processor Ultra-Lite" sounds like some sort of bad throwback to '30s home appliance marketing.
The P4 was an initial disaster for Intel--the cpu hardly anybody wanted. But it wasn't just because of its low performance and IPC, it was because of its dependence on Rdram in the beginning. A mistake which Intel has since remedied.
/. posts from that time!
>>>>>>>>>
Um, no. The P4 was initially aimed at the high-performance market, to whom RDRAM's cost really wasn't that much of an issue. The real problem was that even with RDRAM, The P4 was slower than a cheaper Athlon. The RDRAM factor is arguable (given that RDRAM is still the fastest memory for the P4) but the P4 really took off when they jacked up the clock-speed and overtook AMD.
The fact is that for the past three years Intel has done a lot more wrong than right, stretching all the way back to the infamous re-called 1.13GHz P3--it's the first time in my memory that a shipping cpu was ever recalled by the manufacturer.
>>>>>>
Wow. Obviously, somebody doesn't remember the fdiv pentium. I'd hardly call the 1.13 GHz P3 infamous. They were so rare that the recall affected all of the five people who actually bought one. Besides that, and the trouble with the P4, which I referred to when I said they have had some initial problems with new products, what else have they done wrong?
In fact, it wasn't until the Northwood P4 2.53GHz variant that Intel started doing some things "right"--and that's been for only a few months now.
>>>>>>>>
Just because AMD was a good competitor doesn't mean that Intel wasn't doing the right things. They were working on jacking up the speeds on the P4, and that'll pay of significantly now that they've got a handle on it.
Everybody knew that the low IPC in the P4 would be made up for, eventually, in sheer clock speed--that wasn't debated as far as I can recall.
>>>>>>
Read up on the
What hardly anyone suspected was that AMD would be able to extend the Athlon architecture so well against Intel's Pentium architectures. Indeed, with a new stepping of the Thoroughbred core which started shipping only last week, The Athlon holds its own against the P4 and will do so up to the 3GHz level and maybe beyond. After that comes Hammer, which supposedly will start shipping at close to the MHz range where Athlon XP leaves off, ~2.4GHz.
>>>>
Err, most of the stuff I've seen pegs the Athlon XP at around 2 Ghz, not 2.4.
Only thing is that Hammer will be at least 25% faster than Athlon XP clock for clock, which makes it considerably faster than NOrthwood clock for clock, yet it will have no trouble scaling up in MHz.
>>>>>
I doubt it will have "no trouble." Due to the architecture, it simply won't be able to scale to the kind of clock-speeds the P4 will. Intel is gunning for 5+ GHz, real soon now. AMD will have a hard time keeping up.
Um, its a river in Oregon (you know, that state Intel is based in?) All Intel processors are codenamed after rivers. Now, your post is basically just making fun of a place name, which is actually quite offensive to the locals. Its like, "Oh, Ouagadougou, what a stupid name for a city, who thought up THAT?"
I'd give Intel engineers just a bit more credit than the average /. poster. Intel has been right at getting the trends for awhile now. Take the Pentium 4 for example. Everyone thought it would flop cuz it had crappy IPC. It sucked in the first several iterations (less than 2 GHz). But its quite the speed demon now, ain't it?
As for Itanium, there are quite a few ways it could succeed. It has the potential for serious performance. The super-wide architecture is perfect for code like scientific processing, image processing, and 3D graphics that are nice, regular, and easy to optimize and parallize. And what kind of processing do you think is going to be popular in the future?
I've never seen a 10 watt lightbulb. A run of the mill lightbulb is about 100 watts, not much less than this processor here. And you cannot blind someone with a 100 watt lightbulb except by poking his eyes out with it.
In comparison, a largish-vacuum cleaner is 12 amps, while a leaf blower is about 15 amps.
GPUL the stupidest name for a processor? What were they thinking?
Personally, a RISC chip that ran cool would just give me an excuse to clock it faster...
Like him or not, it takes a certain level of intelligence to get into the institutions he did (Georgetown, Yale, Oxford) without a big powerful family to sway the admissions board.
Yeah, but I went to a geek highschool, everyone else was as smart or smarter. So yeah, I have some faith left in our society. But middle school bit...
Damn /. The last sentence should read:
There are totally stable products that have version numbers less than 1.0, because the author wants some holy grail for the first release. While that's admirable, I think its important that version numbers give at least a general idea of the amount of faith the author has in the stability of a particular release.
In general, I think Linux version numbers tend to be as screwed up as Windows version numbers. The kernel itself, and stuff like GNOME and KDE are fine, but a lot of the secondary software is not. There are totally stable products that have 1.0 is something the author has some level of faith in.
I don't know. New driver model, kernel preemption (big one!), new block device layer, reworked VM. I think that deserves a 3.0. Those kinds of changes would have Micro$oft jacking the version up to XXX-P.
Its not just him. Take a look at Clinton. Whether or not you like his ethics or policies, you have to admit that he was genuinely smart. But he downplayed it like anything. Since when did it become bad to be smart? I *want* my president to be smarter than me. I'm not smart enough to run the country, so his ideas better be over my head.
The astrisk was meant for the following point:
*) No, this isn't an American bash. People all over the world are mostly clueless. In many respects, Americans are better educated then most, though it often doesn't seem that way because American pop culture tends to glorify the "common man" rather than the intellectual as is done in other countries.
The parent poster is on crack, but please do realize that the US is a far different entity than what the average clueless* citizen believes it to be. It is extremely concerened about maintaining economic superiority over the rest of the world, and a lot of its practices (like the WTO) hurt burgeoning industrial systems in developing nations just so US companies have more people to sell their products to. They do have some very bad policies that kill people just as surely (though more indirectly) as any terrorist attack. However, don't look at this as a US-bash. Every single powerful country in history has had its bad aspects. In the end, I'd say that the US's love of freedom and genuine desire to advance humanity (through technology and whatnot) outweight its bad parts, but those bad parts *are* there, and they are very real.