The best benefit I find is the need for only a single heatsink. One giant radiator and a single large, slow case fan, and you have an extremely quiet system.
I have an i7 and GTX 660 in my gaming PC, and it's an extremely quiet system with a heck of a lot more performance than this thing.
How is "price/performance tradeoff" a hard concept to understand?
Because if you care about games, this is too slow. If you don't care about games, this is irrelevant. I can't see any tradeoff that makes any sense outside of tiny niche markets (e.g. people who want to play games but don't care if they look like crap).
So if I buy an AMD CPU, I can play games with low frame-rates at low detail settings (yeah, I know it says 'medium', but when almost all games now go at least up to 'ultra', 'medium' is the new 'low').
Or I could just buy a better CPU and a decent graphics card and play them properly.
The Green drives are fine so long as you don't expect them to be as fast as 15k SCSI, except that I've had a very high failure rate on the 3TB model; that may just be bad luck, but I've yet to see the 1TB to 2TB models fail even after five years.
However, having read the article, I think I'll be replacing the 4-5 year old drives soon:).
But wouldn't the user sitting at the computer see either game video or "This computer is in use and has been locked" while the game is running? I wasn't aware that popular home PC operating systems could run two user sessions at once.
There's nothing stopping you from running a service on the system that renders games to offscreen memory rather than the screen. Nvidia's new software, I believe, can then use H.264 support in the GPU to compress it to stream across the local LAN?
It's where every tech company is trying to go now the big profits from incremental improvements in old products have vanished.
Past users had a choice between thin clients and PCs which would run anything. Future users will only be able to buy computers locked down with Windows Boot and App Stores.
Except the only real reason to buy Office is if you need 100% compatibility with the latest version of Office producing the latest version of Office files. For the rest of us, free software is good enough.
I have no interest in a phone I have to recharge every day or two which reports everything I do back to Google. So even if they had a 'bargain basement' plan for Android phones, I wouldn't be buying one.
I can do the same for a lot less money. Please pick me Microsoft, I am more economically beneficial!:3
I've considered it, but even tens of millions of dollars wouldn't be enough to live with myself after forcing Windows on millions of poor, defenceless phone users.
The long term strategy is that after the company craters, Nokia can purchase it for a song, and he can then be tapped to be CEO of Nokia.
That's what I was thinking. Maybe the plan all along was to get Microsoft to buy Nokia, then kill the rest of Microsoft so Nokia rises from the grave with billions of dollars of cash reserves behind it.
Microsoft has a yearly song and dance routine how they are committed to PC gaming when some executive notices how Valve is making loads of cash and realize that could have been them if they hadn't screwed it up, but it never lasts.
To be fair, PC gaming is the only reason I keep a Windows PC around, so they've made about $100 from me in the last five years buying a copy of Windows 7 for the new gaming PC.
That's nice, but nobody's suggesting xbox should cease to exist or follow a completely different direction, they're just suggesting that Microsoft could sell it off as a separate business.
Who'd buy a company that's lost money over its entire existence and is only making operating profit on old products that it's about to replace?
The internet would have nowhere near as much content (a.k.a. the medium by which knowledge is transferred) as it does today if it weren't for internet advertising and companies like Google.
Indeed not. Because a huge fraction of the 'content' on today's Internet is just spam to bring people to Google ads.
More content is not a good thing, if it's just spam and copies of content available elsewhere but ad-free.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with 28-40 FPS on BF4 at 1920x1080? That's a brand-new game with high end graphics.
It's not 'high-end graphics' when you're playing on a low graphics setting.
Turn it up to Ultra and see what it runs at.
It also probably costs as much for the CPU and GPU as it would for the entire AMD-based system.
If you'd read the thread, you'd see that the GP didn't mention cost at all, only noise.
The best benefit I find is the need for only a single heatsink. One giant radiator and a single large, slow case fan, and you have an extremely quiet system.
I have an i7 and GTX 660 in my gaming PC, and it's an extremely quiet system with a heck of a lot more performance than this thing.
Small form factor business PCs,
Don't need 3D performance. Don't need GPGPU performance in 99% of cases.
Media center PCs
Plenty fast enough already to play video at 1920x1080.
low-end Steambox
If you want your games to look like crap.
Integrating the GPU into the CPU gets the BOM cost down and raises the minimum performance standard.
Because lots of people run 3D games on servers.
Certainly we do use GPUs for some floating-point intensive tasks on servers, but this is nowhere near fast enough to be useful.
How is "price/performance tradeoff" a hard concept to understand?
Because if you care about games, this is too slow. If you don't care about games, this is irrelevant. I can't see any tradeoff that makes any sense outside of tiny niche markets (e.g. people who want to play games but don't care if they look like crap).
So if I buy an AMD CPU, I can play games with low frame-rates at low detail settings (yeah, I know it says 'medium', but when almost all games now go at least up to 'ultra', 'medium' is the new 'low').
Or I could just buy a better CPU and a decent graphics card and play them properly.
The Green drives are fine so long as you don't expect them to be as fast as 15k SCSI, except that I've had a very high failure rate on the 3TB model; that may just be bad luck, but I've yet to see the 1TB to 2TB models fail even after five years.
However, having read the article, I think I'll be replacing the 4-5 year old drives soon :).
The Prussians invented the modern school system for indoctrinating kids, and most Western nations copied it.
But wouldn't the user sitting at the computer see either game video or "This computer is in use and has been locked" while the game is running? I wasn't aware that popular home PC operating systems could run two user sessions at once.
There's nothing stopping you from running a service on the system that renders games to offscreen memory rather than the screen. Nvidia's new software, I believe, can then use H.264 support in the GPU to compress it to stream across the local LAN?
But wouldn't that tie up the main PC so that another member of the household can't use it?
I've rarely seen a game use more than 20% CPU on my PC. So there's plenty left for someone else to use it while streaming game video to a TV.
Yes, but... Vendor Lock-In.
It's where every tech company is trying to go now the big profits from incremental improvements in old products have vanished.
Past users had a choice between thin clients and PCs which would run anything. Future users will only be able to buy computers locked down with Windows Boot and App Stores.
Good luck improving on the power button.
With my old PC, 'powered off' still took about 7W from the wall. Unplugging was certainly an improvement.
Damn... I missed 3 seasons
They were the best 3, too.
If it's at the store, you could just buy it there.
Except it won't be at the store, it will be in a remote warehouse. So there's no incentive to go to the store rather than buy from Amazon.
True. The only real value in the Xbox to a third party would be the name, and that's questionable.
Everything else is so reliant on Microsoft that they'd effectively be a subsidiary unless they dumped the software and built something new.
Except the only real reason to buy Office is if you need 100% compatibility with the latest version of Office producing the latest version of Office files. For the rest of us, free software is good enough.
I have no interest in a phone I have to recharge every day or two which reports everything I do back to Google. So even if they had a 'bargain basement' plan for Android phones, I wouldn't be buying one.
I can do the same for a lot less money. Please pick me Microsoft, I am more economically beneficial! :3
I've considered it, but even tens of millions of dollars wouldn't be enough to live with myself after forcing Windows on millions of poor, defenceless phone users.
The long term strategy is that after the company craters, Nokia can purchase it for a song, and he can then be tapped to be CEO of Nokia.
That's what I was thinking. Maybe the plan all along was to get Microsoft to buy Nokia, then kill the rest of Microsoft so Nokia rises from the grave with billions of dollars of cash reserves behind it.
Microsoft has a yearly song and dance routine how they are committed to PC gaming when some executive notices how Valve is making loads of cash and realize that could have been them if they hadn't screwed it up, but it never lasts.
To be fair, PC gaming is the only reason I keep a Windows PC around, so they've made about $100 from me in the last five years buying a copy of Windows 7 for the new gaming PC.
That's nice, but nobody's suggesting xbox should cease to exist or follow a completely different direction, they're just suggesting that Microsoft could sell it off as a separate business.
Who'd buy a company that's lost money over its entire existence and is only making operating profit on old products that it's about to replace?
The internet would have nowhere near as much content (a.k.a. the medium by which knowledge is transferred) as it does today if it weren't for internet advertising and companies like Google.
Indeed not. Because a huge fraction of the 'content' on today's Internet is just spam to bring people to Google ads.
More content is not a good thing, if it's just spam and copies of content available elsewhere but ad-free.
Interesting. Please explain how you can satirize a source which you have not read.
It's a satire on American militarism, not Heinlein.
Americans just don't like to think of themselves as the most militaristic nation on Earth, which is why they either can't see it, or keep denying it.
Well, yes. I'm sure he had no idea of what kind of movie he was making.
This isn't Uwe Boll we're talking about here.
The satire was not subtle at all - how did so many people miss it?
My experience is that Europeans recognized the satire immediately, while Americans thought it was a serious movie glamourising American militarism.