Then again, K8 is a year old. NetBurst is three years old. P6, the basis of the P-M's architecture, is NINE YEARS OLD. Don't bash P6 for not being forward looking, when it's one of Intel's longest lasting architectures. Not saying that it's the best architecture - K8 has the best IPC (however, we haven't seen a MODERN P6 without the faster parts of the chip slowed down to allow low power consumption, but with the side effect of having a hard ceiling for clock speed, and hurting IPC a little bit).
Also, the monitor's phosphor decay rate matters. I've got a RIC 17" monitor that decays pretty damn slowly, and I run it at a 1280x1024, which it can only handle at 60Hz. At my school, which worships Dell, we have a crapload of E770's, and at that same resolution (which the monitor can again only handle at 60Hz). I can't stand it. I can stand the RIC monitor. Yes, I can tell the difference between 60Hz, 75Hz, and 85Hz on both this monitor or those Dells. I haven't seen a monitor that can handle 100Hz, so I wouldn't know whether I can tell that, though.
No, the ceiling right now is 2.4 on AMD stock speeds, and I've heard the FX-53 (the enthusiast 2.4GHz chip) can do 2.6 easily. And that's without 90nm, which got Intel 200 more MHz on NetBurst (with an increase to 313 in the near future) and 300 more on P6 (with an increase to 413 in the near future) so far. Intel's hoping they can get 600 more MHz out of NetBurst by switching to 90nm. P6 today has a predefined ceiling built in to the design, and Intel only changes it with process changes to keep it lower power. Risky strategy if the new process fails, but MUCH lower power.
I know eMachines did do a complete turn around from the daily new PSU days in 2001. However, I'm still going to be cautious when it comes to eM (I didn't get burned because I didn't give them a chance, but they did use the Trigem Cognac motherboard also used in several HP models, and it's SHIT. I know from personal experience after having gone through two.) However, that's not the main reason I wouldn't buy the M6810 (can't afford the 6811) - the main reason is that they used an MR9600. It's not the performance of that card that's the problem - I wouldn't mind that performance at all. It's the fact that it's an ATI card, and I am running Linux. I'd go ATI if they had better Linux drivers (then again, with Doom 3 loving GF6xxx cards...)
Myself, I'm going to probably get an Averatec 3220H1 (easier to find with awesome rebates than the 3225, and then I don't have to pay an XP Pro tax, as the XP Home model with 512MB RAM has been discontinued) - I've heard they make Toshiba's laptops, and I've had good luck with my old Toshiba laptop (except for it's speed, but can you blame Toshiba for that when it's a P75 with 16MB RAM?) I looked at IBM, but I can't afford what I want with them.
Read the comments at Anandtech, and the source of the A64 numbers. He had both 32 and 64 bit numbers on the A64, and accidentally or intentionally put the 32 bit score in with a 64 bit score for the Xeon.
I'm thinking that your parent meant different manufacturers. The companies you linked to (except the first link) make upgrade kits for older Macs from the IBM (G3 - no need for a G5 upgrade yet) or Motorola (G4) processors. IBM and Motorola are the only PPC manufacturers that I know of.
However, I'm thinking that the GP's post might not have been 100% flamebait. Could he have had a flaky $20 PCChips mobo with that AMD CPU, and a $100-200 Intel mobo with the Intel CPU?
I think it's unfairly biased against AMD. Look at an AMD at the exact same price point, and meant to be used in exactly the same applications (DP server work, and DP workstations) - the Opteron 250.
I know the A64 is PRated as slightly slower than the Xeon, but that's not what I have a problem with. The A64 has 512K cache - something that gets it KILLED against the Xeon. The A64 is a mainstream desktop chip positioned against the Pentium 4 (5xx series), the Xeon (9xx series, IIRC) is a low-end server/workstation chip (mid-end being served by the Xeon MP and Oppie 8xx, high-end being served by the Itanic, SPARC, POWER, etc.) positioned against the Opteron 2xx.
Unfair review, IMO. Even an FX-53 (939 or 940) vs a single Xeon would have been fair, seeing as the FX-53 is an overclockable (and available in S939) Oppie 150...
Now, anyone want to give me a dual S940 mobo, a dual Xeon mobo, two Oppie 250s, two Xeon EM64T 3.6GHz chips, some RAM, some HDDs, and a 6800 Ultra, so I can test this out?
If I had a decent box, I'd make a photo of the CPU fan for the dead Tejas, already installed. It's a 50.8cm fan, and it plugs directly into AC 120V power, so you don't have to worry about the PSU for it. It has a built-in speed control, but it isn't controlled by temperature or the PC itself - it is hand-controlled, and only has three speeds. You might not have heard of these brands in a PC cooling context, but Lasko, Duracraft, Holmes, and others have been producing these for YEARS.
No, if you're a true retrogamer, you want one of these, and that's most definitely an AMD chip. 386DX-40, and that's 40 FSB * 1, w00t! If you can't find the 40MHz chip, then Intel's fair game too - their chips are identical to the AMD chips.
It also seems that other PGA132 chips (even 486DLC chips) had the same Dhrystone performance at the same clock speed, though, on this benchmark (reading graphs, don't know French).
If you need a 486, it gets trickier. Intel was probably the way to go at a certain clock speed, but didn't hit the highest clocks. Still, the Intel DX4-100 was the fastest on Dhrystone. However, Cyrix's 5x86 100MHz owned the Intels on Whetstone. AMD was slightly slower at 100MHz, though.
If you need a Pentium-class chip, determine how much Quake-playing there is. The more Quake, the closer you need to be to Intel (careful about PPros, but it might be 16-bitness on the part of the benchie app), and the further from AMD or Cyrix (and forget NexGen - there are no mobos that take the Nx587, and the Nx586FP is quite rare). However, with integer work, the AMD K6 0wns the Pentium. Then again, anything other than a Cyrix/IBM/ST or a PPro 0wned the Pentium (something tells me the benchie WAS 16-bit).
So, here's what you should have for each situation:
386: As long as it's 40MHz, it doesn't matter. AMD or some 486DLC, IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you can't hit 40MHz, then all 33MHz chips are the same performance according to this benchmark.
486: If you're doing Quake, get a Cyrix 5x86. Otherwise, go Intel.
Pentium: If you're doing Quake, get exactly that - a Pentium. If not, go AMD (but not a late K5).
Three letters (or five, if ATI is your company of choice): MXM (or AXIOM). See, with a Dell or Alienware, you still have to get a Dell or Alienware branded upgrade. With MXM, you could get whatever brand you prefer (especially if ATI, XGI, and S3 make MXM cards or some company drops their mobile PCI-E chips on MXM cards).
There are weak spots (RAM, maybe HDD speed, open media bays), but other than that, the eMachines laptops do that, and at $1399 to $1599. MR9600 64MB (not the best, but...), A64 3200/3400+, etc., etc.
15.4 1280x800 widescreen Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 1MB cache (or so it says - it also says 2GHz, not 2.2) 512MB PC2700 (so that's where you skimp) 80GB HDD DVD+/-RW 6-in-1 flash card reader ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 w/64MB VRAM $1599 after rebate
Drop the 3400+ and go down to a 3200+, and drop the DVD burner and go down to a CD-RW/DVD combo, and it's $1399 after rebate. And, remember that the 3000+ (although that is a Newcastle, and the mobile 3000+ is a Hammer) kicked the 3.2GHz P4EE in Doom...
They DO skimp on the software - only XP Home, but you're getting all of the eMachines crap that you always get there...
I've heard that the hardware quality on the M68xx laptops is pretty damn good. One thing - they use VIA chipsets, so if you've hate those, forget about it (or any A64 laptop - you'll have to go Intel).
Except EM64T isn't really compatible with the A64...
It's SOMEWHAT compatible with x86-64, AMD's x86 extensions for 64-bit. EM64T has the small problem that it only goes to 36-bit (64GB), instead of (IIRC) 40-bit (1TB) memory addressing. I've heard that the DMA works differently because of this, and therefore EM64T CPUs can't use x86-64 drivers (I'm not even certain an x86-64 could use an EM64T driver). Also, I heard something about it not even being a 64-bit CPU (having the 64-bit instructions, but them being handled by 32-bit execution units), but I highly doubt it...
The key to boosting your karma: don't troll, and don't TRY to boost it. Don't make comments that will get modded informative - treat it like you won't get modded up at all, but you WILL get modded down if deserved, and you'll get modded up.
Unless it considers me a troll too, you've got Excellent karma - you've got the bonus.
And, I doubt it's modifying comments themselves...
Re: some one make GOOD spyware that helps please..
on
Analysis of Spyware
·
· Score: 1
I don't think censorship by a third party is a good idea.
Killing iexplore.exe does nothing if it's not running, and killing explorer.exe does nothing because Windows makes sure that it stays running. Replacing iexplore.exe does no good - If you've got a Windows 9x/Me/2000/XP install that you don't care about, and have IE 4 or greater, delete iexplore.exe (or rename it to iexplore.del or something). Reboot even, I don't care. Now, go to My Computer or anywhere that Windows Explorer gets used. If you don't see an address bar, right click in the toolbar and turn it on. Now, put in a web address. Deleting iexplore.exe does nothing productive, as Windows Explorer still functions as a web browser, with 100% of the functionality (and an identical UI) to iexplore, because it IS Internet Explorer.
I can get around IE being disabled VERY easily. You see that address bar in Windows Explorer (the file manager of the Windows DE)? I can put a web address into it, and BINGO! Internet Explorer. In fact, it even works without iexplore.exe being present - I know, as I've seen it happen on a Windows ME box that got an install of AOL even though it was a school install on a network and it had access to a T1... I should carry a LART... I eventually just installed IE6. Oh, and this was before I discovered Opera, so don't flame me.
Slashdot Mirror
Then again, K8 is a year old. NetBurst is three years old. P6, the basis of the P-M's architecture, is NINE YEARS OLD. Don't bash P6 for not being forward looking, when it's one of Intel's longest lasting architectures. Not saying that it's the best architecture - K8 has the best IPC (however, we haven't seen a MODERN P6 without the faster parts of the chip slowed down to allow low power consumption, but with the side effect of having a hard ceiling for clock speed, and hurting IPC a little bit).
Also, the monitor's phosphor decay rate matters. I've got a RIC 17" monitor that decays pretty damn slowly, and I run it at a 1280x1024, which it can only handle at 60Hz. At my school, which worships Dell, we have a crapload of E770's, and at that same resolution (which the monitor can again only handle at 60Hz). I can't stand it. I can stand the RIC monitor. Yes, I can tell the difference between 60Hz, 75Hz, and 85Hz on both this monitor or those Dells. I haven't seen a monitor that can handle 100Hz, so I wouldn't know whether I can tell that, though.
No, the ceiling right now is 2.4 on AMD stock speeds, and I've heard the FX-53 (the enthusiast 2.4GHz chip) can do 2.6 easily. And that's without 90nm, which got Intel 200 more MHz on NetBurst (with an increase to 313 in the near future) and 300 more on P6 (with an increase to 413 in the near future) so far. Intel's hoping they can get 600 more MHz out of NetBurst by switching to 90nm. P6 today has a predefined ceiling built in to the design, and Intel only changes it with process changes to keep it lower power. Risky strategy if the new process fails, but MUCH lower power.
I know eMachines did do a complete turn around from the daily new PSU days in 2001. However, I'm still going to be cautious when it comes to eM (I didn't get burned because I didn't give them a chance, but they did use the Trigem Cognac motherboard also used in several HP models, and it's SHIT. I know from personal experience after having gone through two.) However, that's not the main reason I wouldn't buy the M6810 (can't afford the 6811) - the main reason is that they used an MR9600. It's not the performance of that card that's the problem - I wouldn't mind that performance at all. It's the fact that it's an ATI card, and I am running Linux. I'd go ATI if they had better Linux drivers (then again, with Doom 3 loving GF6xxx cards...)
Myself, I'm going to probably get an Averatec 3220H1 (easier to find with awesome rebates than the 3225, and then I don't have to pay an XP Pro tax, as the XP Home model with 512MB RAM has been discontinued) - I've heard they make Toshiba's laptops, and I've had good luck with my old Toshiba laptop (except for it's speed, but can you blame Toshiba for that when it's a P75 with 16MB RAM?) I looked at IBM, but I can't afford what I want with them.
Because the select benchmark's number was the 32-bit number (the A64 had been tested earlier on both 32 and 64 bit), not the 64-bit number.
Read the comments at Anandtech, and the source of the A64 numbers. He had both 32 and 64 bit numbers on the A64, and accidentally or intentionally put the 32 bit score in with a 64 bit score for the Xeon.
Ahh... Then you just picked the CPU that they should use, the Opteron 250. It's $851, just like the Xeon 3.6.
I'm thinking that your parent meant different manufacturers. The companies you linked to (except the first link) make upgrade kits for older Macs from the IBM (G3 - no need for a G5 upgrade yet) or Motorola (G4) processors. IBM and Motorola are the only PPC manufacturers that I know of.
However, I'm thinking that the GP's post might not have been 100% flamebait. Could he have had a flaky $20 PCChips mobo with that AMD CPU, and a $100-200 Intel mobo with the Intel CPU?
I think it's unfairly biased against AMD. Look at an AMD at the exact same price point, and meant to be used in exactly the same applications (DP server work, and DP workstations) - the Opteron 250.
I know the A64 is PRated as slightly slower than the Xeon, but that's not what I have a problem with. The A64 has 512K cache - something that gets it KILLED against the Xeon. The A64 is a mainstream desktop chip positioned against the Pentium 4 (5xx series), the Xeon (9xx series, IIRC) is a low-end server/workstation chip (mid-end being served by the Xeon MP and Oppie 8xx, high-end being served by the Itanic, SPARC, POWER, etc.) positioned against the Opteron 2xx.
Unfair review, IMO. Even an FX-53 (939 or 940) vs a single Xeon would have been fair, seeing as the FX-53 is an overclockable (and available in S939) Oppie 150...
Now, anyone want to give me a dual S940 mobo, a dual Xeon mobo, two Oppie 250s, two Xeon EM64T 3.6GHz chips, some RAM, some HDDs, and a 6800 Ultra, so I can test this out?
It almost sounds like a 6600 or something. Keep those GT preorders on.
If I had a decent box, I'd make a photo of the CPU fan for the dead Tejas, already installed. It's a 50.8cm fan, and it plugs directly into AC 120V power, so you don't have to worry about the PSU for it. It has a built-in speed control, but it isn't controlled by temperature or the PC itself - it is hand-controlled, and only has three speeds. You might not have heard of these brands in a PC cooling context, but Lasko, Duracraft, Holmes, and others have been producing these for YEARS.
Get an A64 3200+, 512MB RAM, an 80GB HDD, and an ATI MR9600 64MB for $1399 after rebate. There's a catch, though - the maker's eMachines.
I thought HyperTransport was developed by AMD and IBM, with AMD, VIA, nVidia, and Apple developing chipsets for it.
No, if you're a true retrogamer, you want one of these, and that's most definitely an AMD chip. 386DX-40, and that's 40 FSB * 1, w00t! If you can't find the 40MHz chip, then Intel's fair game too - their chips are identical to the AMD chips.
It also seems that other PGA132 chips (even 486DLC chips) had the same Dhrystone performance at the same clock speed, though, on this benchmark (reading graphs, don't know French).
If you need a 486, it gets trickier. Intel was probably the way to go at a certain clock speed, but didn't hit the highest clocks. Still, the Intel DX4-100 was the fastest on Dhrystone. However, Cyrix's 5x86 100MHz owned the Intels on Whetstone. AMD was slightly slower at 100MHz, though.
If you need a Pentium-class chip, determine how much Quake-playing there is. The more Quake, the closer you need to be to Intel (careful about PPros, but it might be 16-bitness on the part of the benchie app), and the further from AMD or Cyrix (and forget NexGen - there are no mobos that take the Nx587, and the Nx586FP is quite rare). However, with integer work, the AMD K6 0wns the Pentium. Then again, anything other than a Cyrix/IBM/ST or a PPro 0wned the Pentium (something tells me the benchie WAS 16-bit).
So, here's what you should have for each situation:
386: As long as it's 40MHz, it doesn't matter. AMD or some 486DLC, IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you can't hit 40MHz, then all 33MHz chips are the same performance according to this benchmark.
486: If you're doing Quake, get a Cyrix 5x86. Otherwise, go Intel.
Pentium: If you're doing Quake, get exactly that - a Pentium. If not, go AMD (but not a late K5).
Three letters (or five, if ATI is your company of choice): MXM (or AXIOM). See, with a Dell or Alienware, you still have to get a Dell or Alienware branded upgrade. With MXM, you could get whatever brand you prefer (especially if ATI, XGI, and S3 make MXM cards or some company drops their mobile PCI-E chips on MXM cards).
There are weak spots (RAM, maybe HDD speed, open media bays), but other than that, the eMachines laptops do that, and at $1399 to $1599. MR9600 64MB (not the best, but...), A64 3200/3400+, etc., etc.
http://emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=e Machines_M6811
15.4 1280x800 widescreen
Mobile Athlon 64 3400+ 1MB cache (or so it says - it also says 2GHz, not 2.2)
512MB PC2700 (so that's where you skimp)
80GB HDD
DVD+/-RW
6-in-1 flash card reader
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 w/64MB VRAM
$1599 after rebate
Drop the 3400+ and go down to a 3200+, and drop the DVD burner and go down to a CD-RW/DVD combo, and it's $1399 after rebate. And, remember that the 3000+ (although that is a Newcastle, and the mobile 3000+ is a Hammer) kicked the 3.2GHz P4EE in Doom...
They DO skimp on the software - only XP Home, but you're getting all of the eMachines crap that you always get there...
I've heard that the hardware quality on the M68xx laptops is pretty damn good. One thing - they use VIA chipsets, so if you've hate those, forget about it (or any A64 laptop - you'll have to go Intel).
No, it doesn't. They're only discontinuing the 3.2GHz P4EE - RTFA.
Except EM64T isn't really compatible with the A64...
It's SOMEWHAT compatible with x86-64, AMD's x86 extensions for 64-bit. EM64T has the small problem that it only goes to 36-bit (64GB), instead of (IIRC) 40-bit (1TB) memory addressing. I've heard that the DMA works differently because of this, and therefore EM64T CPUs can't use x86-64 drivers (I'm not even certain an x86-64 could use an EM64T driver). Also, I heard something about it not even being a 64-bit CPU (having the 64-bit instructions, but them being handled by 32-bit execution units), but I highly doubt it...
Yes, that is a bit long. However, by reading that or TFA, you can tell that it is NOT the P4EE line that's being discontinued.
ONLY the 3.2GHz P4EE is being discontinued, NOT the 3.4GHz P4EE.
Not that it matters, the A64 3000+ is close to the 3.4GHz chip, which costs 5 times as much...
The key to boosting your karma: don't troll, and don't TRY to boost it. Don't make comments that will get modded informative - treat it like you won't get modded up at all, but you WILL get modded down if deserved, and you'll get modded up.
Unless it considers me a troll too, you've got Excellent karma - you've got the bonus.
And, I doubt it's modifying comments themselves...
I don't think censorship by a third party is a good idea.
Killing iexplore.exe does nothing if it's not running, and killing explorer.exe does nothing because Windows makes sure that it stays running. Replacing iexplore.exe does no good - If you've got a Windows 9x/Me/2000/XP install that you don't care about, and have IE 4 or greater, delete iexplore.exe (or rename it to iexplore.del or something). Reboot even, I don't care. Now, go to My Computer or anywhere that Windows Explorer gets used. If you don't see an address bar, right click in the toolbar and turn it on. Now, put in a web address. Deleting iexplore.exe does nothing productive, as Windows Explorer still functions as a web browser, with 100% of the functionality (and an identical UI) to iexplore, because it IS Internet Explorer.
I can get around IE being disabled VERY easily. You see that address bar in Windows Explorer (the file manager of the Windows DE)? I can put a web address into it, and BINGO! Internet Explorer. In fact, it even works without iexplore.exe being present - I know, as I've seen it happen on a Windows ME box that got an install of AOL even though it was a school install on a network and it had access to a T1... I should carry a LART... I eventually just installed IE6. Oh, and this was before I discovered Opera, so don't flame me.