Well Reiser, assuming he is convicted and does time, can write a book too. The things people are allowed in prison are specific and no consideration is given to their profession. Furthermore, a computer is far more than pen and paper. If I were a motorcycle builder, would it be reasonable to provide a machine shop for me in prison?
Of course. That's why you mentioned "convicted murderer".
". Except that if you did an extraordinary service to humanity, you should be given even more leniency."
Why? Is that your get out of jail free card? Do we have "platinum citizenship"?
"Otherwise we are punishing ourselves more than the criminal. "
Sentencing is about justice, not about service to society. It is not considered what society gives up when someone commits a crime. Poets can write poetry because they require minimal resources that can be provided. A computer, test equipment and an internet connection is another matter. Who says Reiser or Linus either one contributes enough to society to be give special consideration?
Apparently where you went to school they teach you to lead with an insult.
"...slapping two dies on a chip instead of putting one moderately larger [than a single] die is going to cost more."
Yes, but 2x larger is more than moderate, especially when a 2x larger die may cost 5x to make due to yields. May you should retake that class.
"There is going to be more die surface area when you have two independent processors on the chip since you duplicate a lot of house keeping..."
A modest amount of die space. Irrelevant anyway. What matters is the cost of two smaller dies versus one larger one.
"And space is money since it limits the number of dies per wafer and ultimately their yields."
You got that right. Too bad you don't understand that smaller dies improve yields.
"Suppose you're right and there is no advantage to using a dual-die approach"
You mean disadvantage. Perhaps AMD doesn't have access to MCM tech.
"The truth is the quad-core layout and design is the more optimal approach over dual-die processors."
Technically it is, but economically most likely not. Furthermore, there is a time to market advantage. Over time, Intel will have a single die solution as well.
"Simply put, there is a lot of memory bandwidth in an AMD processor. You have the three HT links running at 4GB/sec each"
"The two cores fight each other over a very slow external bus, and this creates a performance bottleneck."
Sorry, but nothing in your argument supports the claim that the design includes a "very slow external bus". Yes, the bus is not faster like you'd like it to be. Yes, it may ultimately be a bottleneck in performance. No, it's not a very slow bus.
"When all four cores are on a single peice of Si, all sharing a L3 cache, the chips don't need to fight over the external bus as much."
No. The effectiveness of the caches ultimately are determined by a variety of factors. It is incorrent to assume that cache design in a single die processor is inherently superior.
"Also, true QC chip presents one load to the outside bus. This means that the bus speed does not need to drop because of electrical load."
But it doesn't inherently increase either. Both Intel's and AMD's designs share a single memory controller and ultimately the performance of the system will be effected by how fast the memory and cache system is. Single die versus dual die doesn't have that great an impact.
"There are many people who don't care how the cores are connected as long as the package works."
Ys, and everyone else is crazy.
"The point is that the way the cores are connected have a direct impact on performance."
Right, so let the benchmarks decide. Of course, Intel will have a huge market advantage with their part because AMD will be busy being "true".
"Expect cache thrashing on Intel's true QC chips with heavily threaded loads when it comes out."
So now you're predicting that Intel will suck even after they go to a single die. I guess you've proven that MCM doesn't matter one bit. You just hate anything that comes from Intel.
"How about a fully threaded and loaded database or any other app that will actually stress more than the execution units?"
How about it? Are you claiming that Intel's never seen an application like that? Please be more specific.
It's easy to trash architectures that don't exist with imaginary workloads, isn't it?
"As others pointed out, inter core communication has to hit the FSB."
Whereas AMD's cores all share a single on-die memory controller. Just because AMD has HT and a memory controller built in doesn't mean that it has a significant advantage. In a multi-CPU system it's a different story.
"Two dies take more space than 4 cores on one die"
The aggregate size of the dies is meaningless. Intel's design requires two dies but they are cheaper, perhaps even less than half the cost, of AMD's die. Cost is proportional to die size and large dies get very expensive.
"Space == money therefore it's more costly."
Absolutely incorrect.
"AMD plans on fitting their quadcore within the 95W enveloppe."
Just how exactly does a single die uniquely enable this?
As for the power claims, the question is whether a single quad die has inherent power benefits over two dual dies. Intuitively the answer is little to none. AMD may or may not have real power advantages over Intel but may things go into that, the least of which is how many dies on the chip. In order to add cores without adding to peak power consumption, design work has to be done.
"Just because that statement by itself does not produce a benchmark score for you doesn't mean that it is not a useful statement."
It's not a useful statement nor even a factual one. A quad-core processor has 4 cores on one physical CPU. Those 4 cores are not required to be on a single die to qualify. Hopefully you understand enough about "computer architecture" to get it but most likely not. AMD's ongoing condemnation of Intel's use of MCM is nothing but FUD.
so if it turns out that AMD's design is faster then AMD is better? Is that what you are trying to say. For someone bent on refuting the parent's claim, you did a pretty poor job. The claim was that all that mattered was performance (and that is irrefutable).
"Well now, I never used the term "true multicore" for either design."
Really? You said:
"The Intel solution has none of these, as a direct or indirect result of not being a "true" multicore setup..."
"I'm just saying there is some validity to the assertion that the core 2 quad is more cobbled together."
No processor design is "cobbled together". One could argue that Intel's methods are superior because they have something that AMD doesn't (MCM). They have 45nm as well of course. Intel's tech enables them to bring quad-core to market sooner, so by that measure Intel's design is superior to AMD's. The custumer doesn't care.
"the Intel design has all cores speaking to each other across the front-side bus, which is expected to hurt the 4-way and cripple the 8-way designs (theoretically, I know). The AMD design also requires the cores to talk across the HT bus, so that's why they added more HT links. Intel doesn't have that option."
Doesn't matter because both designs ultimately share a memory controller. HT is helpful in MP systems where each processor adds a memory controller. In a system with a single CPU and memory subsystem, all cores share the same memory one way or another. AMD's advantage is in larger multi-CPU designs, not multicore.
"Nobody is suggesting letting convicted murderers go free, but perhaps someone who led an exemplarily life - volunteer work, good parenting, clean record - until the age of 40 shouldn't spend the rest of his/her life in prison for a single murder."
I hope you're not suggesting he was any of those things. After all, how do you know? His criminal behavior to this point may simply be undocumented. In any case, he should be sentenced like anyone else if he's guilty of a crime---after all, the same case could be made for many first-time murderers.
"Certainly a person who still have a high potential to contribute shouldn't be denied this opportunity even in jail."
Why not? Even given the assumption of "high potential" that is what jail is for after all.
"Would you deny pen and paper to a jailed poet?"
It's certainly happened before. The difference is that programming is Reiser's profession.
No, they don't. Nazis benefit in no way from the use of this information. Furthermore, it would be irresponsible to the patient for a doctor to NOT use information at his disposal.
The difference here is that Reiser could potentially benefit from continued usage of his work down the line.
"Yes, but many people pretend to be 20, so that their page can be public."
That's a fact.
"There's no point in even having a myspace if it's private."
Not true. Some don't want employers or family seeing their pages. I have a friend in the military who's myspace conduct absolutely doesn't meet the standards of the Marine Corp;-)
If there wasn't demand for the privacy feature it wouldn't have been added. The result over time is that the ages listed in the profiles will become older since there were more people wanting privacy than trying to override it. There are far more accounts over 16 than under 16 after all.
It used to be that you had to say you were under 16 to make your page private. Now that you can control that separately, many people no longer need to pretend to be 14.
"You assume the best technical solutions always win."
No I've argued the exact opposite. What are you thinking?
"Consistent and coherent, with a clear structure of basic and constructed units;"
Yes, aesthetically pleasing. So what?
"No weird double-naming for units of the same type, like gallons/fluid ounces; in the case of litres, it's just a dm^3."
There's no "double-naming" in the imperial system. You're arguing conversion factors.
"Globalisation: the rest of the world (except Liberia and Jamaica, I think) uses metric for everything."
Not true, but so what? If there was an economic hardship then the conversion would happen. That's actually the plan.
"Simple conversion factors: you need only to move the point and/or add zeroes, you do not need multiplication."
Yes, logical and aesthetically pleasing. So what? Rarely does the average consumer need to do conversions. Meaningless to engineers since they're free to use metric if they want except where metric is mandated (and it is in some cases).
"Context-independent: for some reason, nutritionists used "great calories", physicists used ergs, chemists "small calories", engineers BTUs. Everybody using the joule and its multiples is much simpler."
Ah, back to conversions again. What does this mean to the average American? How often do nutritionists talk to physicists? Conversions are not a concern to the general population.
"Just because Esperanto (or Spanish for that matter) is simpler and less dyslexia-inducing than English, does not mean you can start talking it yourself and expect it to take on. Some decisions have to be taken top-down, or people will just maintain the status quo because they cannot do otherwise."
The metric system offers about as much benefit to the typical American as Esperanto does. That's why both are ignored.
Just because a technically superior system exists doesn't mean that it offers real benefits. Human language, to take your example, is inefficient and can be easily improved upon yet I don't see anyone, especially the French, arguing to discard what they already speak.
This article presents a brief history of metric conversion in the US. Some quotes:
"The efforts of the Metric Board were largely ignored by the American public...Due to this apparent ineffectiveness, and in an effort to reduce Federal spending, the Metric Board was disestablished in the fall of 1982."
Metric conversion failed in the US because the public didn't want it and the cost wasn't justified.
"Congress, recognizing the necessity of the United States' conformance with international standards for trade, included new encouragement for U.S. industrial metrication in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988....Federal agencies were required by this legislation, with certain exceptions, to use the metric system in their procurement, grants and other business-related activities by the end of 1992. While not mandating metric use in the private sector, the Federal Government has sought to serve as a catalyst in the metric conversion of the country's trade, industry, and commerce."
The US government's approach on metric conversion is to allow it to proceed naturally at its own pace. The belief is that economic benefits will eventually cause the conversion to occur. Frankly, that alone is proof of my position. Once the benefits truly exist then metric will be used. I doubt anyone would argue with me on the matter if they were alive in 1975 to see the wasted money and effort. All we got out of the deal was liter bottles of Coke instead of quarts.
"Right, because the General so kicks a Mercedes' ass. Or a Lexus for that matter. In fact Hyundai is giving them a run. Harley? Maybe you meant the American electronics industry? Scratch that. Medical? Not really. Optics? No. Beyond lawyers I'm not sure in which field America leads any longer."
Was that you case for America being technically behind? How would the metric system help those things?
"The metric system DOES provide tangible benefits. The fact that you don't even realize that is indicative of the real reason why the US hasn't totally switched: ignorance and inertia."
Explain my "ignorance" then. You're quick to offer an insult. Now prove your case.
If there were real, tangible benefits then the switch might have happened. I'm old enough to remember the plan for it to happen. No one cared.
You said "Unfortunately, as long as it needs a full-height graphics card, it'll take up just as much space."
There are half height DVI cards so your statement isn't true. You can get a small chassis that takes either size card anyway. It's not that big a deal.
Enjoy your mini and it's slow hard drive if that's your solution. I think you have more options than that.
"...to the point the US are the last country still using medieval units of measure because no one enforces the metric system."
If the metric system provided tangible benefits rather than just being aesthetically pleasing then the switch would have occurred already. The US government did plan at one time to force conversion to the metric system until it realized it was an expensive solution in seach of a problem. I suppose we just expected a return on our investment that the metric switch couldn't deliver. Anyone who wants to use the metric system in the US is free to do so and I'm sure in some applications it is the standard, but I don't really give a shit whether I buy a gallon or a liter at the gas pump. My tank is the same size either way.
The UK isn't entirely metric either. If the metric system were really such an advantage you'd think the Europeans would be kicking the American's technical asses.
I think you mean that you cannot be compelled to pay your property taxes (under certain cases). You still have the obligation and the taxes accumulate and will be collected when your property changes hands. Since a large amount of school funding comes from property taxes, school districts where a significant portion of retired people live get raked over the coals because of Texas' robin hood program. The tax base is recorded but the district doesn't get credit for property tax "freeloaders".
Yes, it is. When you consider that you can get dual-core processors with higher clockrates and vastly superior cores than your P4, expecting a 3x improvement (roughly) over what you have isn't out of the question. Whether that benefits you or not is another question. As processors get faster, less and less software ultimately benefits from the speed especially when your IO doesn't improve at the same rate and tasks can't be made to take advantage of multiprocessing.
No, we're not. Core2's IPC numbers are nothing as bad as NetBurst. Faster clocks mean faster processors when the core stays the same or improves it's IPC. You are welcome to underclock your processors if you think it will help performace however.
Exactly! When you add more processors with AMD you add more memory controllers. When you add more cores to a single processor that's not true. People seem not to grasp that here.
Sounds great to me. What rulebook are you quoting that says Intel is "cheating"? Where in the article does it say that Intel is using two dies for the processor and why does it matter? This part uses a 45nm process and is most likely a single die.
Slashdot Mirror
Well Reiser, assuming he is convicted and does time, can write a book too. The things people are allowed in prison are specific and no consideration is given to their profession. Furthermore, a computer is far more than pen and paper. If I were a motorcycle builder, would it be reasonable to provide a machine shop for me in prison?
Of course. That's why you mentioned "convicted murderer".
". Except that if you did an extraordinary service to humanity, you should be given even more leniency."
Why? Is that your get out of jail free card? Do we have "platinum citizenship"?
"Otherwise we are punishing ourselves more than the criminal. "
Sentencing is about justice, not about service to society. It is not considered what society gives up when someone commits a crime. Poets can write poetry because they require minimal resources that can be provided. A computer, test equipment and an internet connection is another matter. Who says Reiser or Linus either one contributes enough to society to be give special consideration?
"I don't know where you went to school..."
Apparently where you went to school they teach you to lead with an insult.
"...slapping two dies on a chip instead of putting one moderately larger [than a single] die is going to cost more."
Yes, but 2x larger is more than moderate, especially when a 2x larger die may cost 5x to make due to yields. May you should retake that class.
"There is going to be more die surface area when you have two independent processors on the chip since you duplicate a lot of house keeping..."
A modest amount of die space. Irrelevant anyway. What matters is the cost of two smaller dies versus one larger one.
"And space is money since it limits the number of dies per wafer and ultimately their yields."
You got that right. Too bad you don't understand that smaller dies improve yields.
"Suppose you're right and there is no advantage to using a dual-die approach"
You mean disadvantage. Perhaps AMD doesn't have access to MCM tech.
"The truth is the quad-core layout and design is the more optimal approach over dual-die processors."
Technically it is, but economically most likely not. Furthermore, there is a time to market advantage. Over time, Intel will have a single die solution as well.
"Simply put, there is a lot of memory bandwidth in an AMD processor. You have the three HT links running at 4GB/sec each"
How much more? HT links are not memory bandwidth.
"The two cores fight each other over a very slow external bus, and this creates a performance bottleneck."
Sorry, but nothing in your argument supports the claim that the design includes a "very slow external bus". Yes, the bus is not faster like you'd like it to be. Yes, it may ultimately be a bottleneck in performance. No, it's not a very slow bus.
"When all four cores are on a single peice of Si, all sharing a L3 cache, the chips don't need to fight over the external bus as much."
No. The effectiveness of the caches ultimately are determined by a variety of factors. It is incorrent to assume that cache design in a single die processor is inherently superior.
"Also, true QC chip presents one load to the outside bus. This means that the bus speed does not need to drop because of electrical load."
But it doesn't inherently increase either. Both Intel's and AMD's designs share a single memory controller and ultimately the performance of the system will be effected by how fast the memory and cache system is. Single die versus dual die doesn't have that great an impact.
"There are many people who don't care how the cores are connected as long as the package works."
Ys, and everyone else is crazy.
"The point is that the way the cores are connected have a direct impact on performance."
Right, so let the benchmarks decide. Of course, Intel will have a huge market advantage with their part because AMD will be busy being "true".
"Expect cache thrashing on Intel's true QC chips with heavily threaded loads when it comes out."
So now you're predicting that Intel will suck even after they go to a single die. I guess you've proven that MCM doesn't matter one bit. You just hate anything that comes from Intel.
"How about a fully threaded and loaded database or any other app that will actually stress more than the execution units?"
How about it? Are you claiming that Intel's never seen an application like that? Please be more specific.
It's easy to trash architectures that don't exist with imaginary workloads, isn't it?
"As others pointed out, inter core communication has to hit the FSB."
Whereas AMD's cores all share a single on-die memory controller. Just because AMD has HT and a memory controller built in doesn't mean that it has a significant advantage. In a multi-CPU system it's a different story.
"Two dies take more space than 4 cores on one die"
The aggregate size of the dies is meaningless. Intel's design requires two dies but they are cheaper, perhaps even less than half the cost, of AMD's die. Cost is proportional to die size and large dies get very expensive.
"Space == money therefore it's more costly."
Absolutely incorrect.
"AMD plans on fitting their quadcore within the 95W enveloppe."
Just how exactly does a single die uniquely enable this?
As for the power claims, the question is whether a single quad die has inherent power benefits over two dual dies. Intuitively the answer is little to none. AMD may or may not have real power advantages over Intel but may things go into that, the least of which is how many dies on the chip. In order to add cores without adding to peak power consumption, design work has to be done.
"Just because that statement by itself does not produce a benchmark score for you doesn't mean that it is not a useful statement."
It's not a useful statement nor even a factual one. A quad-core processor has 4 cores on one physical CPU. Those 4 cores are not required to be on a single die to qualify. Hopefully you understand enough about "computer architecture" to get it but most likely not. AMD's ongoing condemnation of Intel's use of MCM is nothing but FUD.
so if it turns out that AMD's design is faster then AMD is better? Is that what you are trying to say. For someone bent on refuting the parent's claim, you did a pretty poor job. The claim was that all that mattered was performance (and that is irrefutable).
"Well now, I never used the term "true multicore" for either design."
Really? You said:
"The Intel solution has none of these, as a direct or indirect result of not being a "true" multicore setup..."
"I'm just saying there is some validity to the assertion that the core 2 quad is more cobbled together."
No processor design is "cobbled together". One could argue that Intel's methods are superior because they have something that AMD doesn't (MCM). They have 45nm as well of course. Intel's tech enables them to bring quad-core to market sooner, so by that measure Intel's design is superior to AMD's. The custumer doesn't care.
"the Intel design has all cores speaking to each other across the front-side bus, which is expected to hurt the 4-way and cripple the 8-way designs (theoretically, I know). The AMD design also requires the cores to talk across the HT bus, so that's why they added more HT links. Intel doesn't have that option."
Doesn't matter because both designs ultimately share a memory controller. HT is helpful in MP systems where each processor adds a memory controller. In a system with a single CPU and memory subsystem, all cores share the same memory one way or another. AMD's advantage is in larger multi-CPU designs, not multicore.
Why does it seem reasonable?
"Watch your back. Keep your head down. Mind your own business."
and don't murder your wife.
"Nobody is suggesting letting convicted murderers go free, but perhaps someone who led an exemplarily life - volunteer work, good parenting, clean record - until the age of 40 shouldn't spend the rest of his/her life in prison for a single murder."
I hope you're not suggesting he was any of those things. After all, how do you know? His criminal behavior to this point may simply be undocumented. In any case, he should be sentenced like anyone else if he's guilty of a crime---after all, the same case could be made for many first-time murderers.
"Certainly a person who still have a high potential to contribute shouldn't be denied this opportunity even in jail."
Why not? Even given the assumption of "high potential" that is what jail is for after all.
"Would you deny pen and paper to a jailed poet?"
It's certainly happened before. The difference is that programming is Reiser's profession.
No, they don't. Nazis benefit in no way from the use of this information. Furthermore, it would be irresponsible to the patient for a doctor to NOT use information at his disposal.
The difference here is that Reiser could potentially benefit from continued usage of his work down the line.
"Yes, but many people pretend to be 20, so that their page can be public."
;-)
That's a fact.
"There's no point in even having a myspace if it's private."
Not true. Some don't want employers or family seeing their pages. I have a friend in the military who's myspace conduct absolutely doesn't meet the standards of the Marine Corp
If there wasn't demand for the privacy feature it wouldn't have been added. The result over time is that the ages listed in the profiles will become older since there were more people wanting privacy than trying to override it. There are far more accounts over 16 than under 16 after all.
It used to be that you had to say you were under 16 to make your page private. Now that you can control that separately, many people no longer need to pretend to be 14.
"You assume the best technical solutions always win."
...Federal agencies were required by this legislation, with certain exceptions, to use the metric system in their procurement, grants and other business-related activities by the end of 1992. While not mandating metric use in the private sector, the Federal Government has sought to serve as a catalyst in the metric conversion of the country's trade, industry, and commerce."
No I've argued the exact opposite. What are you thinking?
"Consistent and coherent, with a clear structure of basic and constructed units;"
Yes, aesthetically pleasing. So what?
"No weird double-naming for units of the same type, like gallons/fluid ounces; in the case of litres, it's just a dm^3."
There's no "double-naming" in the imperial system. You're arguing conversion factors.
"Globalisation: the rest of the world (except Liberia and Jamaica, I think) uses metric for everything."
Not true, but so what? If there was an economic hardship then the conversion would happen. That's actually the plan.
"Simple conversion factors: you need only to move the point and/or add zeroes, you do not need multiplication."
Yes, logical and aesthetically pleasing. So what? Rarely does the average consumer need to do conversions. Meaningless to engineers since they're free to use metric if they want except where metric is mandated (and it is in some cases).
"Context-independent: for some reason, nutritionists used "great calories", physicists used ergs, chemists "small calories", engineers BTUs. Everybody using the joule and its multiples is much simpler."
Ah, back to conversions again. What does this mean to the average American? How often do nutritionists talk to physicists? Conversions are not a concern to the general population.
"Just because Esperanto (or Spanish for that matter) is simpler and less dyslexia-inducing than English, does not mean you can start talking it yourself and expect it to take on. Some decisions have to be taken top-down, or people will just maintain the status quo because they cannot do otherwise."
The metric system offers about as much benefit to the typical American as Esperanto does. That's why both are ignored.
Just because a technically superior system exists doesn't mean that it offers real benefits. Human language, to take your example, is inefficient and can be easily improved upon yet I don't see anyone, especially the French, arguing to discard what they already speak.
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/lc1136a.htm
This article presents a brief history of metric conversion in the US. Some quotes:
"The efforts of the Metric Board were largely ignored by the American public...Due to this apparent ineffectiveness, and in an effort to reduce Federal spending, the Metric Board was disestablished in the fall of 1982."
Metric conversion failed in the US because the public didn't want it and the cost wasn't justified.
"Congress, recognizing the necessity of the United States' conformance with international standards for trade, included new encouragement for U.S. industrial metrication in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.
The US government's approach on metric conversion is to allow it to proceed naturally at its own pace. The belief is that economic benefits will eventually cause the conversion to occur. Frankly, that alone is proof of my position. Once the benefits truly exist then metric will be used. I doubt anyone would argue with me on the matter if they were alive in 1975 to see the wasted money and effort. All we got out of the deal was liter bottles of Coke instead of quarts.
"Right, because the General so kicks a Mercedes' ass. Or a Lexus for that matter. In fact Hyundai is giving them a run. Harley? Maybe you meant the American electronics industry? Scratch that. Medical? Not really. Optics? No. Beyond lawyers I'm not sure in which field America leads any longer."
Was that you case for America being technically behind? How would the metric system help those things?
"Problems such as NASA's?"
Yes, if only NASA was metric.
"The metric system DOES provide tangible benefits. The fact that you don't even realize that is indicative of the real reason why the US hasn't totally switched: ignorance and inertia."
Explain my "ignorance" then. You're quick to offer an insult. Now prove your case.
If there were real, tangible benefits then the switch might have happened. I'm old enough to remember the plan for it to happen. No one cared.
You said "Unfortunately, as long as it needs a full-height graphics card, it'll take up just as much space."
There are half height DVI cards so your statement isn't true. You can get a small chassis that takes either size card anyway. It's not that big a deal.
Enjoy your mini and it's slow hard drive if that's your solution. I think you have more options than that.
"...to the point the US are the last country still using medieval units of measure because no one enforces the metric system."
If the metric system provided tangible benefits rather than just being aesthetically pleasing then the switch would have occurred already. The US government did plan at one time to force conversion to the metric system until it realized it was an expensive solution in seach of a problem. I suppose we just expected a return on our investment that the metric switch couldn't deliver. Anyone who wants to use the metric system in the US is free to do so and I'm sure in some applications it is the standard, but I don't really give a shit whether I buy a gallon or a liter at the gas pump. My tank is the same size either way.
The UK isn't entirely metric either. If the metric system were really such an advantage you'd think the Europeans would be kicking the American's technical asses.
I think you mean that you cannot be compelled to pay your property taxes (under certain cases). You still have the obligation and the taxes accumulate and will be collected when your property changes hands. Since a large amount of school funding comes from property taxes, school districts where a significant portion of retired people live get raked over the coals because of Texas' robin hood program. The tax base is recorded but the district doesn't get credit for property tax "freeloaders".
There are half height video cards that provide DVI. Look into the slim chassis HTPCs and you'll find them.
Yes, it is. When you consider that you can get dual-core processors with higher clockrates and vastly superior cores than your P4, expecting a 3x improvement (roughly) over what you have isn't out of the question. Whether that benefits you or not is another question. As processors get faster, less and less software ultimately benefits from the speed especially when your IO doesn't improve at the same rate and tasks can't be made to take advantage of multiprocessing.
No, we're not. Core2's IPC numbers are nothing as bad as NetBurst. Faster clocks mean faster processors when the core stays the same or improves it's IPC. You are welcome to underclock your processors if you think it will help performace however.
Exactly! When you add more processors with AMD you add more memory controllers. When you add more cores to a single processor that's not true. People seem not to grasp that here.
Sounds great to me. What rulebook are you quoting that says Intel is "cheating"? Where in the article does it say that Intel is using two dies for the processor and why does it matter? This part uses a 45nm process and is most likely a single die.