The government can do anything. That doesn't make it right.
It's non-competitive products and services with less demand than other things which is what should be done because it's what people want.
For a real job someone is ok giving you whatever benefits in return for it.
This crap is just socialism and you know it and it's trash, fake and retarded. Just like the people who think it's how things should be done and defend it.. I don't even have to mention anyone..
No the party willing to pay it isn't real. People don't want to have the shit the government do. Here in Sweden it spend million of SEK per non-asylum seeker of "Afghan" ethnicity but often from Iran. Hardly anyone would want to pay for that shit but the government do so anyway. But it's not their money. It's stolen money.
Because stocks areally companies producing value and profits. Do owning bitcoin? No. Does the bitcoin network? Arguable. It's less liquid and by now have high transaction costs and use a lot of energy. What's the advantage?
There's also a ton of crypto currencies out now. Of which bitcoin unlikely is the technically best. (Dash seemed interesting.)
It is artificial if you get money for it in a socialist society. Like our Nordic countries.
Plenty of artificial jobs created either directly in the public sector or on up public spending to cover part of the salary or even salary + payment to the employee for accepting the previously unemployed to do something. All salaries here doesn't come from people who actually wanted to pay for the service made. It's socialist enough societies to pay for the stuff people and companies don't really want to spend their own money or resources onto.
They already did nothing and received something anyway.
That's how it work.
The bit above â600 isn't even much money in Finland.
And they don't necessarily get more money. However I assume they get the money no matter what! Even if they start to have an income. So they definitely get advantages of getting one. Also they don't have to worry about losing the benefit but know they will always have it.
Mean-while I'm in Sweden and get â1100 / month or something for not doing anything but if I started to do something I'd lose this benefit and the right of it (though I could always go back to â750-800...) but that make it a bit less attractive now doesn't it?
Until the last year or two quad-cores did fine but now quad-cores without hyper-threading is limiting games and more cores are better for some.
Also the i7 8700K can be overclocked to ~4.9 GHz without delid and 5-5.2 or so with.
The i7 8600K maybe you can reach 5.1 GHz or so without delid so you gain 200 MHz or 4% but you lose hyper-threading for 6 cores..
I can stream game-play with 1.5-7% processor load (1.5-6 mbps x264), so I guess the best would be to put OBS on one core and the game on the other five, anyway in that scenario of course the i7 8700K is better than say an i5 7600K (i3 8350K by now.)
Right now I use the Samsung EVO 850 SSD and there it was just 4K performance which was impacted 10-12%. So not an average for my system.
However it's bought with the intent of gaming, streaming, virtual machines and security/encryption (and yeah, disk access isn't irrelevant too then again to get the good stuff HEDT / ThreadRipper is the way to go.)
I've basically paid twice the price over B350 + Ryzen 5 1600 for Z370 + i7 8700K for what isn't twice the performance but just a bit more performance because I wanted to have that extra performance. Ryzen 2 and this bug kinda removes that.
In a professional scenario whatever streaming, virtual machines, rendering, databases or what not the value of the product you may be much more valuable than the equipment you use to produce it and there a 20% performance difference may mean much more than a 20% price of the tool you use.
Also of course the risk / it's likely the case that running virtual machines and running faster storage (I do own an Optane stick too) will have more of an impact than those 10-12%.
Part of the enforcement is that you don't tell about it.
My first thought was if the flaw was put there with intent too.
That may not make sense with my comment about how I didn't thought so but that was from different perspectives, that of the NSA, CIA and FBI and that of the engineers/designers of Intel with the goal of creating as good of a processor as they could.
So even then it's a larger impact than 10%. On the latest processor. But the system used had their 600p SSD which is really slow. How about the 960 Pro or their Optane stuff?
As for what the responsiveness test actually test I don't know (may be possible to google that) but file-performance and virtualization may be worse.
There will be cases where the impact is beyond 10%, a 10% average would be pretty crappy. Mind you that you can get a B350 board and a Ryzen 5 1600 processor for about half the price of a Z370 board and an Intel i7 8700K.
Kinda interesting how the one advantage "no-one can make more of these than what we have decided there ever will be" doesn't really hold true so much any longer with close to infinity number of sets instead.
Of course you can avoid the update one way or the other. But you put yourself at risk.
If you'll only run one game which you trust then maybe that's acceptable. However if you use your machine to surf the web aswell then I'd want to have it.
Also even if you have the microcode update and Windows or Linux software update you can turn of the software solutions which I don't know how much of the hardware solutions that leave in place but yeah. It may be kinda possible to choose whatever you want to be protected or not and decide whatever you want the impact or not.
Personally I can still return my stuff, maybe not the processor I don't know, and then I could wait for the next version of Zen. But the machine I would have left then is shit until then.
I also get crashes daily for some reason which make that a more attactive options. Seem like it may be the graphics drivers which crash my machine but I don't know for sure.
1) The consoles and "oh shiny"-benchmarks want to brag about 4K and before of ultra graphics quality and show pretty screenshots. As is I have an i7 8700K but still the HD 6950 2 GB graphics card.. I get 80ish to 120 fps in 1280x800 on low in Quake Champions. Not sure which part is holding me back but currently the monitors which support UHD at over 60 Hz is easily counted and I'm more interested in both HDR and higher refresh-rate than what I'm about more pixels. Not that UHD is uninteresting just that I'd much rather have 144 Hz WQHD than 60 Hz UHD. While on consoles 30 fps may be ok or they want to up the graphical quality and sacrifice frame-rate I'm not them. I play games on low to get better performance as is.
2) The Ryzen 5 1600 isn't all that much slower than an i7 8700K. If we compare the max OC chips on userbenchmark the i7 8700K is 37%, 39% and 28% faster in single-core, quad-core and multi-core loads. Throw in whatever disadvantage there for the Intel and the gap shrinks. The Ryzen 5 1600 + B350 board cost half as much as the i7 8700K and a Z370 one. For the Ryzen 7 1700 things will look even better but they are also due to a refresh 1-3 months from now. The ThreadRipper 1900X is from the chips they deem worthy for threadripper so I'll use that rather than the Ryzen 7 1700 just to have the best 8 core they have currently. Against that the i7 8700K is 28% and 29% faster on single- and quad-core loads but 10% slower on multi-core ones. Remove some Intel performance and add some AMD performance and it will quickly become about a wash but AMD charges half the price for their solution. I paid more money for the i7 8700K because it's the best. If it's not then it's of course not worth that money.
3) Regardless of where consoles are now and whatever a slower processor would be "ok" now things progress and this mean that the Intel chips won't last as long into the future. They will both lose their lead over AMD but of course if Intel fix this on silicon level that mean that the new chips will be a bunch faster too. Intel speed has progressed very slowly at 10% per generation or so. At best possibly. A 30% drop would mean 3 generations of lost performance (That's not how you to math with percent but it's how Intel claimed the i7 7700K against the 6700K, 4790K and 4770K or whatever it was. A kinda weird selection of chips maybe.)
Anyway a 30% performance loss for gaming would be massive. But I kinda don't feel 15% is acceptable either.
Ryzen 7 1700 already have higher multi-core performance. Add an OS slow-down on Intel and a process gain on AMD and the Ryzen 7 2700 will become much faster in multi-core tasks and maybe catch up in single-core ones.
We get all the other shit so why not your plastic too?
Kinda fun how they say we're kinda leading in exporting jihadists per capita. I'm sure the cowardliness of Swedish politicians and openness for all sorts of trash and lying flat for Islam and poor assimilation and too many immigrants is part of it but of course the other part of it is that we IMPORT so damn many of them from the beginning. But yeah, we also let them grow and flourish to their full shitty potential.
Slashdot Mirror
The government can do anything.
That doesn't make it right.
It's non-competitive products and services with less demand than other things which is what should be done because it's what people want.
For a real job someone is ok giving you whatever benefits in return for it.
This crap is just socialism and you know it and it's trash, fake and retarded. Just like the people who think it's how things should be done and defend it .. I don't even have to mention anyone ..
No the party willing to pay it isn't real. People don't want to have the shit the government do. Here in Sweden it spend million of SEK per non-asylum seeker of "Afghan" ethnicity but often from Iran. Hardly anyone would want to pay for that shit but the government do so anyway. But it's not their money. It's stolen money.
https://data.worldbank.org/ind...
GDP 2016 in USD
1) USA, 18,624 billion
2) China, 11,199 billion
3) Japan, 4,940 billion
4) Germany, 3,478 billion
5) United Kingdom, 2,648 billion
6) France, 2,465 billion
7) India, 2,264 billion
8) Italy, 1,859 billion
9) Brazil, 1,796 billion
10) Canada, 1,530
11) Korean republic, 1,411 billion
12) Russia, 1,283 billion
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...
California, 2,600 billions
So if California was a country it would had been #6 in 2016.
I assume the profits of California is for instance from Apple rather than from building maintainance workers.
But not for bitcoins?
Steam stopped supporting them because each transaction cost them (over?) $20.
We've got other means to do that cheaper. One guy buying drugs sat and waited for the money to be transfered. We've got faster ways.
I can't see the rest of your post when replying because Slashdot is shit so this is what you get for now.
As an investment into the technology?
Because stocks areally companies producing value and profits. Do owning bitcoin? No. Does the bitcoin network? Arguable. It's less liquid and by now have high transaction costs and use a lot of energy. What's the advantage?
There's also a ton of crypto currencies out now. Of which bitcoin unlikely is the technically best. (Dash seemed interesting.)
It is artificial if you get money for it in a socialist society. Like our Nordic countries.
Plenty of artificial jobs created either directly in the public sector or on up public spending to cover part of the salary or even salary + payment to the employee for accepting the previously unemployed to do something. All salaries here doesn't come from people who actually wanted to pay for the service made. It's socialist enough societies to pay for the stuff people and companies don't really want to spend their own money or resources onto.
This is Finland.
They already did nothing and received something anyway.
That's how it work.
The bit above â600 isn't even much money in Finland.
And they don't necessarily get more money.
However I assume they get the money no matter what! Even if they start to have an income. So they definitely get advantages of getting one. Also they don't have to worry about losing the benefit but know they will always have it.
Mean-while I'm in Sweden and get â1100 / month or something for not doing anything but if I started to do something I'd lose this benefit and the right of it (though I could always go back to â750-800 ...) but that make it a bit less attractive now doesn't it?
ASUS has already released BIOSes for their Z370 boards.
Others haven't. AFAIK / some days ago.
But yeah, you should expect firmware upgrades for spectre.
Except that's bullshit.
Until the last year or two quad-cores did fine but now quad-cores without hyper-threading is limiting games and more cores are better for some.
Also the i7 8700K can be overclocked to ~4.9 GHz without delid and 5-5.2 or so with.
The i7 8600K maybe you can reach 5.1 GHz or so without delid so you gain 200 MHz or 4% but you lose hyper-threading for 6 cores ..
I can stream game-play with 1.5-7% processor load (1.5-6 mbps x264), so I guess the best would be to put OBS on one core and the game on the other five, anyway in that scenario of course the i7 8700K is better than say an i5 7600K (i3 8350K by now.)
It's very hard to put a price on it.
Right now I use the Samsung EVO 850 SSD and there it was just 4K performance which was impacted 10-12%. So not an average for my system.
However it's bought with the intent of gaming, streaming, virtual machines and security/encryption (and yeah, disk access isn't irrelevant too then again to get the good stuff HEDT / ThreadRipper is the way to go.)
I've basically paid twice the price over B350 + Ryzen 5 1600 for Z370 + i7 8700K for what isn't twice the performance but just a bit more performance because I wanted to have that extra performance. Ryzen 2 and this bug kinda removes that.
In a professional scenario whatever streaming, virtual machines, rendering, databases or what not the value of the product you may be much more valuable than the equipment you use to produce it and there a 20% performance difference may mean much more than a 20% price of the tool you use.
Also of course the risk / it's likely the case that running virtual machines and running faster storage (I do own an Optane stick too) will have more of an impact than those 10-12%.
Part of the enforcement is that you don't tell about it.
My first thought was if the flaw was put there with intent too.
That may not make sense with my comment about how I didn't thought so but that was from different perspectives, that of the NSA, CIA and FBI and that of the engineers/designers of Intel with the goal of creating as good of a processor as they could.
https://newsroom.intel.com/edi...
https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-...
i7 8700K Windows 10 SSD
SYSMark 2014 SE Responsiveness 88%
So even then it's a larger impact than 10%. On the latest processor. But the system used had their 600p SSD which is really slow. How about the 960 Pro or their Optane stuff?
As for what the responsiveness test actually test I don't know (may be possible to google that) but file-performance and virtualization may be worse.
There will be cases where the impact is beyond 10%, a 10% average would be pretty crappy. Mind you that you can get a B350 board and a Ryzen 5 1600 processor for about half the price of a Z370 board and an Intel i7 8700K.
Even with this change FX wouldn't become faster.
I also assume it wasn't supposed to have these consequences when designed.
Nice try but the only thing which matter is whatever the statement is true or not.
Intel got billions of reasons to want to spread an image where this doesn't matter much.
Others may have less of a reason. But sure both sides could choose their data and try to exaggerate.
Kinda interesting how the one advantage "no-one can make more of these than what we have decided there ever will be" doesn't really hold true so much any longer with close to infinity number of sets instead.
Which currency will dominate?
Threats or promises. Possibly a combination.
Accept and accept.
Of course you can avoid the update one way or the other. But you put yourself at risk.
If you'll only run one game which you trust then maybe that's acceptable. However if you use your machine to surf the web aswell then I'd want to have it.
Also even if you have the microcode update and Windows or Linux software update you can turn of the software solutions which I don't know how much of the hardware solutions that leave in place but yeah. It may be kinda possible to choose whatever you want to be protected or not and decide whatever you want the impact or not.
Personally I can still return my stuff, maybe not the processor I don't know, and then I could wait for the next version of Zen. But the machine I would have left then is shit until then.
I also get crashes daily for some reason which make that a more attactive options. Seem like it may be the graphics drivers which crash my machine but I don't know for sure.
I'm only licensing performance at Intels will?
How can it copy anything into ROM?
1) First post mention PUBG.
2) Reply mention ads.
By now PUBG of course market itself but how much of a marketing budget did it have originally?
Was it marketing which brought it to the top?
I'd call bullshit.
1) The consoles and "oh shiny"-benchmarks want to brag about 4K and before of ultra graphics quality and show pretty screenshots. As is I have an i7 8700K but still the HD 6950 2 GB graphics card .. I get 80ish to 120 fps in 1280x800 on low in Quake Champions. Not sure which part is holding me back but currently the monitors which support UHD at over 60 Hz is easily counted and I'm more interested in both HDR and higher refresh-rate than what I'm about more pixels. Not that UHD is uninteresting just that I'd much rather have 144 Hz WQHD than 60 Hz UHD. While on consoles 30 fps may be ok or they want to up the graphical quality and sacrifice frame-rate I'm not them. I play games on low to get better performance as is.
2) The Ryzen 5 1600 isn't all that much slower than an i7 8700K.
If we compare the max OC chips on userbenchmark the i7 8700K is 37%, 39% and 28% faster in single-core, quad-core and multi-core loads. Throw in whatever disadvantage there for the Intel and the gap shrinks. The Ryzen 5 1600 + B350 board cost half as much as the i7 8700K and a Z370 one.
For the Ryzen 7 1700 things will look even better but they are also due to a refresh 1-3 months from now. The ThreadRipper 1900X is from the chips they deem worthy for threadripper so I'll use that rather than the Ryzen 7 1700 just to have the best 8 core they have currently. Against that the i7 8700K is 28% and 29% faster on single- and quad-core loads but 10% slower on multi-core ones.
Remove some Intel performance and add some AMD performance and it will quickly become about a wash but AMD charges half the price for their solution.
I paid more money for the i7 8700K because it's the best. If it's not then it's of course not worth that money.
3) Regardless of where consoles are now and whatever a slower processor would be "ok" now things progress and this mean that the Intel chips won't last as long into the future. They will both lose their lead over AMD but of course if Intel fix this on silicon level that mean that the new chips will be a bunch faster too. Intel speed has progressed very slowly at 10% per generation or so. At best possibly. A 30% drop would mean 3 generations of lost performance (That's not how you to math with percent but it's how Intel claimed the i7 7700K against the 6700K, 4790K and 4770K or whatever it was. A kinda weird selection of chips maybe.)
Anyway a 30% performance loss for gaming would be massive. But I kinda don't feel 15% is acceptable either.
Ryzen 7 1700 already have higher multi-core performance. Add an OS slow-down on Intel and a process gain on AMD and the Ryzen 7 2700 will become much faster in multi-core tasks and maybe catch up in single-core ones.
Make you next processor a VIA one.
https://hexus.net/tech/news/cp...
If you buy a phone which haven't been locked down then it's not an unlocked phone. It's a phone without any locks. Or just a phone.
Only locked down phones can be unlocked.
Just send it to Sweden.
We get all the other shit so why not your plastic too?
Kinda fun how they say we're kinda leading in exporting jihadists per capita. I'm sure the cowardliness of Swedish politicians and openness for all sorts of trash and lying flat for Islam and poor assimilation and too many immigrants is part of it but of course the other part of it is that we IMPORT so damn many of them from the beginning. But yeah, we also let them grow and flourish to their full shitty potential.
That would make it easier to deal with.
They shouldn't mix.