Because you said "HDR images are not at their best on a computer monitor, they look much better in print."
Why would a high dynamic range image be best presented on the lowest dynamic range output available? Any monitor is better for the job than a conventional print. You could just as easily have said that a full color image looks much better in black and white. The ideal output device would have enough dynamic range to display the image without compression.
BTW, HDR imaging is about capturing high dynamic range. How it is presented is really unrelated. The cucumber vs pickle comparison is arguably more applicable to what you said than what I said. At least my comment makes some technical sense.
Negative film has great latitude because, when it goes to print, it only needs to produce 6 stops of range. When a 9 or 10 stop film gets converted to 6, there's 3+ stops of exposure latitude to play with. When you shoot slide film it's the film itself that you produce so you don't have that "luxury". It's all a matter or perspective, but I think a lot of the forgiveness that negative film provides is a result of the low dynamic range output (print).
One of the great things about digital is seeing the immediate exposure result via a histogram. Depending on your application, bracketing isn't as valuable as it is with film. For what I do (underwater, macro) I never bracket but I check each exposure as I go. Digital is the greatest thing to ever happen to underwater photography.
Who says authors are allowed to continue their profession? Inmates are frequently afforded very modest things such as books, pens and paper. An author may be able to make do with that while a programmer will not. Just because an inmate is a programmer doesn't mean he's entitled to more than anyone else.
Please. If you're going to talk photography, at least has the decency to quote a photography site. Anandtech is no expert and the link you provided had no date to back of their incorrect claim.
Print has a maximum dynamic range of about 5.5 to 6 stops unless it uses a special process. Film itself can go up to about 11 stops although typical films offer less than 10. Furthermore, film is not linear and the resultant output is typically compressed to 8.5 or less. Dmax for slide film can be as great as 3.6 or 3.7 versus about 2.0 for print. Here's a quick link that is somewhat more useful than yours: http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/density_ra nge.htm. You can find real information on the subject if you are willing to look. Here's another: http://photo.net/learn/drange/
Regarding digital imaging, current digital SLRs offer dynamic range of over 10 stops, surpassing any available color film. For medical imaging work, imagers could be made with even better dynamic range. Don't know if they bother.
Finally, any monitor easily exceeds print for dynamic range. After all, print has a contrast ratio of maybe 50:1. 6.5 to 7 stops is common from monitors.
"To turn your own bad argument against you, how many people must have a personal interest in what he is doing for it to be a productive contribution to society?"
The two are unrelated. That is my point and apparently yours as well. Not all convicted felons were deadbeats before their sentencing and Reiser wouldn't be special in any way.
"Yes, but why should it always do so? If a prisoner wants to make a productive contribution to society and it is not exceptionally difficult to allow that to happen, why not?"
Because that's how our punishment system works. A prisoner can certainly contribute once incarcerated. He can make license plates for example.
"No, he forfeits most of the choices available to those who are not in prison. Last I knew reading books was (mostly) just as much of a choice available to prisoners as staring at the wall. What I am proposing is that continuing to work on something that a larger community finds valuable is an acceptable choice to offer to him."
He forfeits all of his choices. Book reading is a priviledge that inmates are granted but is not their right or choice. No one cares what you propose. It's a prison, not a democracy, and the system doesn't concern itself with the larger community. The government doesn't give a crap about Linux or ReiserFS and it shouldn't. It cares about bringing a murderer to justice.
"...nor did I say that he should be allowed to go free because of his contribution to society."
No, you proposed that an exception be granted to allow an inmate to continue his profession while in jail for no reasonable justifacation other than the "larger community" wants his free software.
"Asking me about the relative value of human life is like asking how many numbers are in infinity, the two concepts are mutually exclusive."
I never asked you about the value of human life. I made a blanket statement that can't be refuted. A person has apparently been murdered and you, and others here, seem to think the potential contributions to open source by the (alleged) murderer are more important than justice. Who gives a shit about ReiserFS in the context of a murder?
"Don't people in prison generally have at least some free time? Time to keep a journal, or write a book? Or read a book?"
I think they get a lot. It's the professional time they don't get any of.
"This is not the point."
People seem to feel that somehow and exception should be granted for this particular case. The absurdity of that was my point.
"...Is that really so different than giving him a pen and some paper and letting him write a book?"
Yes, it's entirely different. There is no justification for allowing exceptions for certain inmates to continue their professional work once incarcerated.
"And punishment isn't always the real point of prison"
no, but it's part of it. Giving up your freedoms is part of the cost of committing crimes. If convicted he forfeits his ability to continue his business. The fact that others are disappointed is irrelevant. Perhaps he should have consulted the community before (allegedly) committing the murder.
Hmmm. Did not know that. Apparently compliance isn't so good though and support for it isn't built into OS X (as of the writing of the article). Has this changed?
Exactly! The purpose of HDR photography is to capture all the dynamic range of the scene, not to display it in all it's eye-blasting glory. Part of the HDR technique is to selectively compress the dynamic range to achieve interesting images.
"The dynamic range of film is simply so much greater than can be achieved with standard CRTs or LCD monitors..."
Nonsense. You can't compare a recording device (film) with a playback device (monitor). Digital sensors (the equivalent of film) can have just as great dynamic range as film and are inherently more linear. Monitors have greater dynamic range than print output. slide film is better than print.
There are already specialized displays for medical imaging.
"Digital cable tuners are supposed to include a FireWire output."
Who says?
"All Macintosh computers have FireWire inputs."
Yeah. Do they support the video formats over firewire that these tuners are supposed to provide? Where is iPVR? I guess the mac doesn't have support for this after all.
Just because he may work on a project of personal interest to you doesn't mean that he makes a "productive contribution to society". Prison deprives all prisoners of making such contributions. If Reiser is convicted and sent to jail, he can make productive contributions by picking up trash on our highways just like others do.
Prison is specifically about denying criminals their freedom and the impact to society is one of the costs that we bear. Sorry, but if Reiser goes to jail he forfeits his ability to freely choose the manner in which he spends his time. Too bad if that costs you something in the process. ReiserFS isn't as valuable as a human life. If it were, how many free murders would Linus be allowed to commit?
"Says who? Like I said, it's used that way in industry a lot, but it varies. Multi-core can mean per chip or per die, usually depending on the context. E.g. as an architect I wouldn't call an MCM multi-core because from my perspective the other core is on the other side of the FSB."
OK, you just stated that it's so a second time without anything to back up the claim. As an architect, I would call an MCM part multi-core because from my perspective there are multiple cores on the part. Your FSB argument is irrelevant.
"Chip, by the way, is another one of those words that can vary depending on context to mean either a die or package, so you probably should have asked for clarification from whoever told you that it means "on a single chip"."
Except that "chip" is well established as slang for a part that has pins coming out of it. No one confuses "chip" with "die", though they could, so I chose to not be anal about it. If I don't use "chip" then what do I use to refer to the part?
"A good example of another way of looking at this is IBM's Power 5, which is a dual-core chip, and when packaged onto a gigantic MCM with 3 other Power 5 the result is called "eight-way", using the terminology for an MP system."
I don't see how it's another way of looking at the issue at all. Multicore processors ARE MP systems. If IBM offers 8 cores on a single part then it's an 8 core processor. MCM predates multicore dies.
"No, there is still a distinction, because you can call an MCM multi-core, fine, but it isn't multi-core done right."
Sure, that's the AMD propaganda. "Done right" is a matter of achieving your goals the best way possible, so going onto a single die is only "done right" when it's better than MCM. Time to market is obviously an issue for Intel, so they've done multi-core "right" by using MCM instead. No doubt that using a single die has technical merits and Intel will switch to that when the time comes.
"...whereas I'm focusing on the "architercurally significant differences in design" aspect."
Yes, and your fallacy is declaring that your values are more "right" than mine or Intel's. (not saying my values are the same as Intel's, I'm simply defending them from FUD)
"You're taking it entirely as an issue of "is Intel allowed to call their product multi-core", a literalist view. I was taking "true" in a less existential form, one that means "multi-core done right"."
Yes, mine is correct in reality while yours is correct in some "less existential form". Intel will do a one-die quad-core part when it makes technical sense for them to do so. The MCM part, just like the previous dual one, is a early market product that AMD won't match. That doesn't mean it's not a true quad-core part.
"I got caught up in the new definition of "FUD" meaning "bullshit", which this isn't"
Unfortunately,/.'ers misuse the term and ruin it for those who might use it correctly.
"At the same time, Intel's MCM itself is nothing but a marketing ploy. "Intel's MCM will deliver 4 cores on a single processor". Check off that bullet point on the marketing brochure. Is it a good implementation? Well, no, but the bullet point is still checked off, and besides they'll do it "right" in the near future anyway."
This is just more crap. There will be nothing wrong with the Intel MCM part. Yes, it will likely be less good than future processors, but then what isn't? Yes, Intel is doing it in order to to offer a quad part early. How horrible of them to do that! The MCM part is not "a marketing ploy", it's a part you can buy.
"Being to market faster with an inferior product helps Intel, but not really the customer, who in most cases would be better served by waiting until Intel comes out with their four-cores-on-one-die product, which they absolutely will."
In most cases maybe, but not in all cases. If there were no customers then Intel wouldn't offer it and AMD wouldn't be publishing FUD to sell against it. If customers
so being in debt means you're not earning money? I suppose no one told her that her husband's commitment to open source meant that her life and work must be free as in beer.
"This is one of the reasons why the cops didn't mind arresting him."
Cops don't mind arresting anybody.
"Then again, who doesn't feel that way about their ex-wife."
Feel what way? Are you saying you know how he felt? You think everyone has murderous feelings? Perhsps the cops shouldn't mind arresting you.
It's more than a laptop, but yes I am. Obviously an arbitrary decision to make available computing resources adequate for the task is justifiable. Why stop there? We don't make available tools to continue and inmate's profession in jail!
"So by your logic, people with prior criminal record shouldn't get stiffer sentences than first time offenders?"
Where did I say that?
"why should "positive record" not be considered in addition to criminal record?"
No such thing as a positive record.
"What's your problem with someone having a computer in jail if the costs are fully paid for by outside parties?"
Because jail is punishment. What's the problem with an inmate staying at the Hyatt Regency if the costs are fully paid for by outside parties? By your logic, anyone who could afford to live outside jail would have no need going at all (and they could keep their job too). Think how much money that would save!
"but usually the usage of multi-core implies on a single die"
says who? It means on a single chip. The fact that most chip have only one die does not make what you say true.
"AMD is just pointing out that there is a distinction between an MCM and a "true" multi-core, which there is."
only when you've bought into the falsehood of your first claim. Single die is no more "true" multi-core than MCM is.
"And the condemnation isn't FUD"
It is in every way. The purpose of such claims is to cast doubt on the performance of the Intel product until AMD can bring theirs to market. It's classic FUD and nothing other than that. Intel's MCM will deliver 4 cores on a single processor. That's a true quad core part regardless of what AMD says and the fact that they say otherwise proves that AMD is practicing FUD.
"but worse than it would be were it a single die."
Certainly, but a single die solution can't be brought to market as quickly. A processor that I can buy today is infinitely faster than one I can't.
"So moving the I/O devices off the memory bus is a good thing in terms of bandwidth and also latency."
Only if there's something significant to move. Memory latency is a strong point with the AMD design but not because of HT.
"As for your DMA comment it's actually better now. You can read from memory and feed to the I/O at the same time."
If by that you mean that you can do memory cycles and do hardware programming on the bus concurrently then no you can't and no it doesn't matter. Both contend for the HT link and the IO programming is of no performance consequence. Regardless, the DMA in my example only accounts for 3 or 4 percent of total memory bandwidth.
"As for the dual-die issue, there is going to be redudant logic in the 2nd die. That's unavoidable. It's another independent processor. Moving the cores, cache, APICs and etc into a single die will save on some of the front end. If there is an internal crossbar between the cores [e.g. not the FSB] then it's even better."
Yes, and how much die size penalty is that? How much difference in cost does it make? You act like that matters so I'd like to see some numbers. The redundant logic you refer to is minor.
"The only benefit for Intel of the dual-die is so they can beat AMD to the punch with an inferior product."
Inferior to what? AMD will have nothing at all in that time frame. How's that for inferior!
"I mean it doesn't even have proper power saving support yet."
What is proper? Anything you've had before?
"You can buy that crap if you want. But personally I'll wait for a properly worked out quad-core before I decide to take the leap"
There you go again. "Proper" according to you is whatever AMD says it despite your inability to quantify just what makes MCM improper. I'm sure Intel will weep at your lost sale.
"What we are seeing with real applications under load and Intel's initial "quad core" pre-release hardware is an average 55% benefit over a shipping dual core when clocked 250mHz higher."
Who's "we" Mr. AC? Show me your test results.
"The Intel tech is being hampered by the MCM choice in their initial release."
Proof please.
"The fact is MCM as Intel has implemented it is hampering a chips potential the only question is how much."
The answer is close to 0. Prove me wrong.
"...you even conceed will get around to dropping MCM and going for a "true quad core chip" later."
No need to concede that. Intel and AMD have both made it abundantly clear that their focus will be more cores per die and per chip on future generations. It's not just AMD's idea and it's not to overcome any MCM problem. It's what is necessary to take advantage of new processes.
"AMD has NDAs out but some have said that even their initial AM2 based quad core chips like Barcelona get an 128% average benefit over dual core chips clocked 125mHz higher."
Of course they do, but that can't be verified because it's under NDA which you've apparently violated. In other words, it's bullshit.
"Replace "true" with "a supplier of well engineered products and technological leader..."...who will bring their product to market about the same time as their competitor's second generation, single die product. If AMD did their own process engineering then they wouldn't be a generation behind Intel, would they?
Again with the personal attacks. I guess it upsets you when you can't win an argument outright. Care you measure your technical penis with me, Tom? What are your qualifications?
Yes, I/O peripherals are frequently memory mapped, but even IO cycles are performed over the bus on Intel (vs HT on AMD) so it doesn't really matter what kind of cycles they are. What does matter is how much total bandwidth is used to program hardware. The answer, of course, is that it's a trivially small amount compared the the GB/sec numbers of overall bandwidth that the bus provides. It's a drop in the ocean compared the bandwidth differences between the memory controllers themselves. I'm sure you know that seein's how you're so technically elite. Care to continue your absurd defense of the value of HT in a single processor system?
The bulk of IO itself will occur using DMA to and from physical memory. The other stuff doesn't matter. In a typical PC, there will be 1 or 2 hard disk drives (100 MB/sec each), and ethernet port providing 10 or 100 MB/sec, and some low speed stuff. If the system optimistically can generate 200MB/sec of sustained DMA for IO, what fraction of that will be setup cycles for the hardware and how can that possibly make a blip on a 5GB/sec memory bus?
Of course, HT itself is and argument between Intel and AMD, not between single die and MCM. You've conceeded that you know nothing about the single die issue and are clinging to the idea that you can win the HT argument. HT is necessary for AMD because of the integral memory controllers and it's an architectural win in multiprocessor systems. It has no impact on the internal design of a single processor.
"At least for AMD they are going 65nm in their first quad-core so the die size will be comparable to the dual-core"
Intel will do the same with their next generation of course.
"HT links are used for PCI/PCIE devices too. Even in a single processor box you benefit from HT."
Yes, IO uses HT but that's not memory bandwidth either.
"That said in server setups HT links are gold because they are used for NUMA."
Yes, and in larger MP machines AMD has a definite advantage. This is a discussion of a single processor, though, and whether one die or multiple dies matter. There is only one memory controller in such a system, no NUMA. In that context HT is not a performance advantage. AMD's integrated memory controller (most likely) is but, again, that doesn't effect the one-die/two-die discussion.
It seems this argument for you is about Intel vs AMD, not one die vs MCM. Shame you can't separate the two.
"All I'm saying is dual-die == dumb, wait for a properly designed quad-core."
Yes, and you're wrong about that. MCM allows Intel to bring quad-core to market sooner. That's why it's used. "Properly designed" just shows your prejudice. A properly designed processor is one that meets its market objectives effectively and if using a single die makes you a year late to market then it's not "properly designed".
"They're usually incomplete [e.g. reports that the power states are not fully supported in the dual-die are already coming out] and short lived."
Blah blah. The part isn't out yet. Such reports are from people like you who are preconvinced that Intel's product can't be good. When it comes out it will be compared to what else is available at that time and there will be no AMD quad-core. Future products will always be better.
"...but I'd stay away from the dual-die."
and I'm sure you will. For the customer who may buy such a processor, he won't care whether it is dual-die or not. All that matters is how fast it is and how much it costs. The rest of the discussion is meaningless.
It isn't, but it is roughly twice the size of a single dual-core die. The cost of such a die would be 2x IFF the die size were reasonable, but at the sizes these processors use the actual cost will be much more. Designers of these processors have to balance die size with overall cost all the time and it's ludicrous to assume that the quad-core die will always be cheaper. Until process improvements support quad-core, the opposite will likely be true.
"Otherwise, why would Intel EVER move to true dual-core or quad-core?"
Because process shrinks enable Intel to pack more transistors on a die. In order to use those transistors they add more cores.
"Also HT links ARE memory bandwidth. I can access memory from another NUMA node via HT while simultaneously performing an operation in my process local node...."
No, they aren't. HT is a point-to-point link. I a UP quad-core AMD system there is only one memory controller. You can add all the HT links to it that you'd like but you don't increase memory bandwidth one bit.
" Don't bother replying. I don't really care that much for what you have to say."
What's the matter, Tom, afraid you might learn something?
Slashdot Mirror
Because you said "HDR images are not at their best on a computer monitor, they look much better in print."
Why would a high dynamic range image be best presented on the lowest dynamic range output available? Any monitor is better for the job than a conventional print. You could just as easily have said that a full color image looks much better in black and white. The ideal output device would have enough dynamic range to display the image without compression.
BTW, HDR imaging is about capturing high dynamic range. How it is presented is really unrelated. The cucumber vs pickle comparison is arguably more applicable to what you said than what I said. At least my comment makes some technical sense.
Negative film has great latitude because, when it goes to print, it only needs to produce 6 stops of range. When a 9 or 10 stop film gets converted to 6, there's 3+ stops of exposure latitude to play with. When you shoot slide film it's the film itself that you produce so you don't have that "luxury". It's all a matter or perspective, but I think a lot of the forgiveness that negative film provides is a result of the low dynamic range output (print).
One of the great things about digital is seeing the immediate exposure result via a histogram. Depending on your application, bracketing isn't as valuable as it is with film. For what I do (underwater, macro) I never bracket but I check each exposure as I go. Digital is the greatest thing to ever happen to underwater photography.
Who says authors are allowed to continue their profession? Inmates are frequently afforded very modest things such as books, pens and paper. An author may be able to make do with that while a programmer will not. Just because an inmate is a programmer doesn't mean he's entitled to more than anyone else.
Please. If you're going to talk photography, at least has the decency to quote a photography site. Anandtech is no expert and the link you provided had no date to back of their incorrect claim.
a nge.htm. You can find real information on the subject if you are willing to look. Here's another: http://photo.net/learn/drange/
Print has a maximum dynamic range of about 5.5 to 6 stops unless it uses a special process. Film itself can go up to about 11 stops although typical films offer less than 10. Furthermore, film is not linear and the resultant output is typically compressed to 8.5 or less. Dmax for slide film can be as great as 3.6 or 3.7 versus about 2.0 for print. Here's a quick link that is somewhat more useful than yours: http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/density_r
Regarding digital imaging, current digital SLRs offer dynamic range of over 10 stops, surpassing any available color film. For medical imaging work, imagers could be made with even better dynamic range. Don't know if they bother.
Finally, any monitor easily exceeds print for dynamic range. After all, print has a contrast ratio of maybe 50:1. 6.5 to 7 stops is common from monitors.
"To turn your own bad argument against you, how many people must have a personal interest in what he is doing for it to be a productive contribution to society?"
The two are unrelated. That is my point and apparently yours as well. Not all convicted felons were deadbeats before their sentencing and Reiser wouldn't be special in any way.
"Yes, but why should it always do so? If a prisoner wants to make a productive contribution to society and it is not exceptionally difficult to allow that to happen, why not?"
Because that's how our punishment system works. A prisoner can certainly contribute once incarcerated. He can make license plates for example.
"No, he forfeits most of the choices available to those who are not in prison. Last I knew reading books was (mostly) just as much of a choice available to prisoners as staring at the wall. What I am proposing is that continuing to work on something that a larger community finds valuable is an acceptable choice to offer to him."
He forfeits all of his choices. Book reading is a priviledge that inmates are granted but is not their right or choice. No one cares what you propose. It's a prison, not a democracy, and the system doesn't concern itself with the larger community. The government doesn't give a crap about Linux or ReiserFS and it shouldn't. It cares about bringing a murderer to justice.
"...nor did I say that he should be allowed to go free because of his contribution to society."
No, you proposed that an exception be granted to allow an inmate to continue his profession while in jail for no reasonable justifacation other than the "larger community" wants his free software.
"Asking me about the relative value of human life is like asking how many numbers are in infinity, the two concepts are mutually exclusive."
I never asked you about the value of human life. I made a blanket statement that can't be refuted. A person has apparently been murdered and you, and others here, seem to think the potential contributions to open source by the (alleged) murderer are more important than justice. Who gives a shit about ReiserFS in the context of a murder?
"Don't people in prison generally have at least some free time? Time to keep a journal, or write a book? Or read a book?"
I think they get a lot. It's the professional time they don't get any of.
"This is not the point."
People seem to feel that somehow and exception should be granted for this particular case. The absurdity of that was my point.
"...Is that really so different than giving him a pen and some paper and letting him write a book?"
Yes, it's entirely different. There is no justification for allowing exceptions for certain inmates to continue their professional work once incarcerated.
"And punishment isn't always the real point of prison"
no, but it's part of it. Giving up your freedoms is part of the cost of committing crimes. If convicted he forfeits his ability to continue his business. The fact that others are disappointed is irrelevant. Perhaps he should have consulted the community before (allegedly) committing the murder.
Hmmm. Did not know that. Apparently compliance isn't so good though and support for it isn't built into OS X (as of the writing of the article). Has this changed?
0 426151111599
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2004
Exactly! The purpose of HDR photography is to capture all the dynamic range of the scene, not to display it in all it's eye-blasting glory. Part of the HDR technique is to selectively compress the dynamic range to achieve interesting images.
Conventional printing offers lower dynamic range than any computer monitor.
"The dynamic range of film is simply so much greater than can be achieved with standard CRTs or LCD monitors..."
Nonsense. You can't compare a recording device (film) with a playback device (monitor). Digital sensors (the equivalent of film) can have just as great dynamic range as film and are inherently more linear. Monitors have greater dynamic range than print output. slide film is better than print.
There are already specialized displays for medical imaging.
"Digital cable tuners are supposed to include a FireWire output."
Who says?
"All Macintosh computers have FireWire inputs."
Yeah. Do they support the video formats over firewire that these tuners are supposed to provide? Where is iPVR? I guess the mac doesn't have support for this after all.
Just because he may work on a project of personal interest to you doesn't mean that he makes a "productive contribution to society". Prison deprives all prisoners of making such contributions. If Reiser is convicted and sent to jail, he can make productive contributions by picking up trash on our highways just like others do.
Prison is specifically about denying criminals their freedom and the impact to society is one of the costs that we bear. Sorry, but if Reiser goes to jail he forfeits his ability to freely choose the manner in which he spends his time. Too bad if that costs you something in the process. ReiserFS isn't as valuable as a human life. If it were, how many free murders would Linus be allowed to commit?
"Says who? Like I said, it's used that way in industry a lot, but it varies. Multi-core can mean per chip or per die, usually depending on the context. E.g. as an architect I wouldn't call an MCM multi-core because from my perspective the other core is on the other side of the FSB."
/.'ers misuse the term and ruin it for those who might use it correctly.
OK, you just stated that it's so a second time without anything to back up the claim. As an architect, I would call an MCM part multi-core because from my perspective there are multiple cores on the part. Your FSB argument is irrelevant.
"Chip, by the way, is another one of those words that can vary depending on context to mean either a die or package, so you probably should have asked for clarification from whoever told you that it means "on a single chip"."
Except that "chip" is well established as slang for a part that has pins coming out of it. No one confuses "chip" with "die", though they could, so I chose to not be anal about it. If I don't use "chip" then what do I use to refer to the part?
"A good example of another way of looking at this is IBM's Power 5, which is a dual-core chip, and when packaged onto a gigantic MCM with 3 other Power 5 the result is called "eight-way", using the terminology for an MP system."
I don't see how it's another way of looking at the issue at all. Multicore processors ARE MP systems. If IBM offers 8 cores on a single part then it's an 8 core processor. MCM predates multicore dies.
"No, there is still a distinction, because you can call an MCM multi-core, fine, but it isn't multi-core done right."
Sure, that's the AMD propaganda. "Done right" is a matter of achieving your goals the best way possible, so going onto a single die is only "done right" when it's better than MCM. Time to market is obviously an issue for Intel, so they've done multi-core "right" by using MCM instead. No doubt that using a single die has technical merits and Intel will switch to that when the time comes.
"...whereas I'm focusing on the "architercurally significant differences in design" aspect."
Yes, and your fallacy is declaring that your values are more "right" than mine or Intel's. (not saying my values are the same as Intel's, I'm simply defending them from FUD)
"You're taking it entirely as an issue of "is Intel allowed to call their product multi-core", a literalist view. I was taking "true" in a less existential form, one that means "multi-core done right"."
Yes, mine is correct in reality while yours is correct in some "less existential form". Intel will do a one-die quad-core part when it makes technical sense for them to do so. The MCM part, just like the previous dual one, is a early market product that AMD won't match. That doesn't mean it's not a true quad-core part.
"I got caught up in the new definition of "FUD" meaning "bullshit", which this isn't"
Unfortunately,
"At the same time, Intel's MCM itself is nothing but a marketing ploy. "Intel's MCM will deliver 4 cores on a single processor". Check off that bullet point on the marketing brochure. Is it a good implementation? Well, no, but the bullet point is still checked off, and besides they'll do it "right" in the near future anyway."
This is just more crap. There will be nothing wrong with the Intel MCM part. Yes, it will likely be less good than future processors, but then what isn't? Yes, Intel is doing it in order to to offer a quad part early. How horrible of them to do that! The MCM part is not "a marketing ploy", it's a part you can buy.
"Being to market faster with an inferior product helps Intel, but not really the customer, who in most cases would be better served by waiting until Intel comes out with their four-cores-on-one-die product, which they absolutely will."
In most cases maybe, but not in all cases. If there were no customers then Intel wouldn't offer it and AMD wouldn't be publishing FUD to sell against it. If customers
Can he continue to work? If he's in jail I certainly hope not. That's the point.
;-)
Yes, some prisons have internet, but I'm confident it's not fulltime broadband in private cells.
It's called jury duty, not jury privilege. In what way does jury duty keep the system honest? It has nothing to do with that.
so being in debt means you're not earning money? I suppose no one told her that her husband's commitment to open source meant that her life and work must be free as in beer.
"This is one of the reasons why the cops didn't mind arresting him."
Cops don't mind arresting anybody.
"Then again, who doesn't feel that way about their ex-wife."
Feel what way? Are you saying you know how he felt? You think everyone has murderous feelings? Perhsps the cops shouldn't mind arresting you.
It's more than a laptop, but yes I am. Obviously an arbitrary decision to make available computing resources adequate for the task is justifiable. Why stop there? We don't make available tools to continue and inmate's profession in jail!
"So by your logic, people with prior criminal record shouldn't get stiffer sentences than first time offenders?"
Where did I say that?
"why should "positive record" not be considered in addition to criminal record?"
No such thing as a positive record.
"What's your problem with someone having a computer in jail if the costs are fully paid for by outside parties?"
Because jail is punishment. What's the problem with an inmate staying at the Hyatt Regency if the costs are fully paid for by outside parties? By your logic, anyone who could afford to live outside jail would have no need going at all (and they could keep their job too). Think how much money that would save!
"but usually the usage of multi-core implies on a single die"
says who? It means on a single chip. The fact that most chip have only one die does not make what you say true.
"AMD is just pointing out that there is a distinction between an MCM and a "true" multi-core, which there is."
only when you've bought into the falsehood of your first claim. Single die is no more "true" multi-core than MCM is.
"And the condemnation isn't FUD"
It is in every way. The purpose of such claims is to cast doubt on the performance of the Intel product until AMD can bring theirs to market. It's classic FUD and nothing other than that. Intel's MCM will deliver 4 cores on a single processor. That's a true quad core part regardless of what AMD says and the fact that they say otherwise proves that AMD is practicing FUD.
"but worse than it would be were it a single die."
Certainly, but a single die solution can't be brought to market as quickly. A processor that I can buy today is infinitely faster than one I can't.
"So moving the I/O devices off the memory bus is a good thing in terms of bandwidth and also latency."
Only if there's something significant to move. Memory latency is a strong point with the AMD design but not because of HT.
"As for your DMA comment it's actually better now. You can read from memory and feed to the I/O at the same time."
If by that you mean that you can do memory cycles and do hardware programming on the bus concurrently then no you can't and no it doesn't matter. Both contend for the HT link and the IO programming is of no performance consequence. Regardless, the DMA in my example only accounts for 3 or 4 percent of total memory bandwidth.
"As for the dual-die issue, there is going to be redudant logic in the 2nd die. That's unavoidable. It's another independent processor. Moving the cores, cache, APICs and etc into a single die will save on some of the front end. If there is an internal crossbar between the cores [e.g. not the FSB] then it's even better."
Yes, and how much die size penalty is that? How much difference in cost does it make? You act like that matters so I'd like to see some numbers. The redundant logic you refer to is minor.
"The only benefit for Intel of the dual-die is so they can beat AMD to the punch with an inferior product."
Inferior to what? AMD will have nothing at all in that time frame. How's that for inferior!
"I mean it doesn't even have proper power saving support yet."
What is proper? Anything you've had before?
"You can buy that crap if you want. But personally I'll wait for a properly worked out quad-core before I decide to take the leap"
There you go again. "Proper" according to you is whatever AMD says it despite your inability to quantify just what makes MCM improper. I'm sure Intel will weep at your lost sale.
"What we are seeing with real applications under load and Intel's initial "quad core" pre-release hardware is an average 55% benefit over a shipping dual core when clocked 250mHz higher."
...who will bring their product to market about the same time as their competitor's second generation, single die product. If AMD did their own process engineering then they wouldn't be a generation behind Intel, would they?
Who's "we" Mr. AC? Show me your test results.
"The Intel tech is being hampered by the MCM choice in their initial release."
Proof please.
"The fact is MCM as Intel has implemented it is hampering a chips potential the only question is how much."
The answer is close to 0. Prove me wrong.
"...you even conceed will get around to dropping MCM and going for a "true quad core chip" later."
No need to concede that. Intel and AMD have both made it abundantly clear that their focus will be more cores per die and per chip on future generations. It's not just AMD's idea and it's not to overcome any MCM problem. It's what is necessary to take advantage of new processes.
"AMD has NDAs out but some have said that even their initial AM2 based quad core chips like Barcelona get an 128% average benefit over dual core chips clocked 125mHz higher."
Of course they do, but that can't be verified because it's under NDA which you've apparently violated. In other words, it's bullshit.
"Replace "true" with "a supplier of well engineered products and technological leader..."
Again with the personal attacks. I guess it upsets you when you can't win an argument outright. Care you measure your technical penis with me, Tom? What are your qualifications?
Yes, I/O peripherals are frequently memory mapped, but even IO cycles are performed over the bus on Intel (vs HT on AMD) so it doesn't really matter what kind of cycles they are. What does matter is how much total bandwidth is used to program hardware. The answer, of course, is that it's a trivially small amount compared the the GB/sec numbers of overall bandwidth that the bus provides. It's a drop in the ocean compared the bandwidth differences between the memory controllers themselves. I'm sure you know that seein's how you're so technically elite. Care to continue your absurd defense of the value of HT in a single processor system?
The bulk of IO itself will occur using DMA to and from physical memory. The other stuff doesn't matter. In a typical PC, there will be 1 or 2 hard disk drives (100 MB/sec each), and ethernet port providing 10 or 100 MB/sec, and some low speed stuff. If the system optimistically can generate 200MB/sec of sustained DMA for IO, what fraction of that will be setup cycles for the hardware and how can that possibly make a blip on a 5GB/sec memory bus?
Of course, HT itself is and argument between Intel and AMD, not between single die and MCM. You've conceeded that you know nothing about the single die issue and are clinging to the idea that you can win the HT argument. HT is necessary for AMD because of the integral memory controllers and it's an architectural win in multiprocessor systems. It has no impact on the internal design of a single processor.
you can quit.
the good news would be that your new company would be an attractive enough target to sue.
"At least for AMD they are going 65nm in their first quad-core so the die size will be comparable to the dual-core"
Intel will do the same with their next generation of course.
"HT links are used for PCI/PCIE devices too. Even in a single processor box you benefit from HT."
Yes, IO uses HT but that's not memory bandwidth either.
"That said in server setups HT links are gold because they are used for NUMA."
Yes, and in larger MP machines AMD has a definite advantage. This is a discussion of a single processor, though, and whether one die or multiple dies matter. There is only one memory controller in such a system, no NUMA. In that context HT is not a performance advantage. AMD's integrated memory controller (most likely) is but, again, that doesn't effect the one-die/two-die discussion.
It seems this argument for you is about Intel vs AMD, not one die vs MCM. Shame you can't separate the two.
"All I'm saying is dual-die == dumb, wait for a properly designed quad-core."
Yes, and you're wrong about that. MCM allows Intel to bring quad-core to market sooner. That's why it's used. "Properly designed" just shows your prejudice. A properly designed processor is one that meets its market objectives effectively and if using a single die makes you a year late to market then it's not "properly designed".
"They're usually incomplete [e.g. reports that the power states are not fully supported in the dual-die are already coming out] and short lived."
Blah blah. The part isn't out yet. Such reports are from people like you who are preconvinced that Intel's product can't be good. When it comes out it will be compared to what else is available at that time and there will be no AMD quad-core. Future products will always be better.
"...but I'd stay away from the dual-die."
and I'm sure you will. For the customer who may buy such a processor, he won't care whether it is dual-die or not. All that matters is how fast it is and how much it costs. The rest of the discussion is meaningless.
It isn't, but it is roughly twice the size of a single dual-core die. The cost of such a die would be 2x IFF the die size were reasonable, but at the sizes these processors use the actual cost will be much more. Designers of these processors have to balance die size with overall cost all the time and it's ludicrous to assume that the quad-core die will always be cheaper. Until process improvements support quad-core, the opposite will likely be true.
..."
"Otherwise, why would Intel EVER move to true dual-core or quad-core?"
Because process shrinks enable Intel to pack more transistors on a die. In order to use those transistors they add more cores.
"Also HT links ARE memory bandwidth. I can access memory from another NUMA node via HT while simultaneously performing an operation in my process local node.
No, they aren't. HT is a point-to-point link. I a UP quad-core AMD system there is only one memory controller. You can add all the HT links to it that you'd like but you don't increase memory bandwidth one bit.
"
Don't bother replying. I don't really care that much for what you have to say."
What's the matter, Tom, afraid you might learn something?