I can't argue with you on gaming consoles - I have a very weak knowledge at that topic. In fact I won't tell apart 360 from that new Nintendo's box. But I have some knowledge on CPU architectures, and I can tell you, that there nothing like "comparable technology" playing any significant role. The technology more or less is same, but even if you take a look at modern personal computer/server CPUs - there is nothing comparable. Having the same clock speed, processors can give benchmarks _several_times_ different one from another. Just to make my point more clear - you can't compare different platforms only by their CPU clock speed. Period. It will not give you any meaningful results, or something to draw any conclusions of. Well if those clock speeds, were different by order of magnitude, I would say you might use it as measure, because no architecture will give you such performance range, but you are talking about numbers that are almost equal! You shouldn't even be surprised if "slower" (in your terms) platform will outperform other.
I'm sorry,you are completely wrong. Those number (clock speed) can't be compared _at_all_ on processors with different architectures. For example one CPU can perform only one simple operation during the CPU cycle and need to fetch each instruction from RAM, while other may perform dozen operations of different pipes and stages, take instruction from light-speed fast cache and predict most of the branches. That's just example, but it not far from the truth. CPU clock speed all alone can tell you _nothing_ about performance of the system. Even if you take into account the architecture, clock speed, RAM speed, main board and buses architecture, etc. you can tell nothing, because in order to compare, you have to run real benchmarks, because some architectures outperform others easily on some tasks, and lose on others.
Really, I don't understand what all this noise around for? There is nothing to do for the Microsoft now - the code is out, and there is no way to stop it from spreading now. Thousands of people has already downloaded it, and it widely spread on p2p networks.
I think all this warnings - it's just about PR. Microsoft needs to show that they trying to do something, and not just sitting and watching the code spread (what, actually, all they can do:) ).
BTW, just take look how many sources you can find for file:
ed2k://|file|windows_2000_source_code.zip|21374820 7|34BB9F3A3E8D3E0C4490A96EC30B9F3C|/
:)
Slashdot Mirror
Aha. Unfortunately including stupid trolls.
I can't argue with you on gaming consoles - I have a very weak knowledge at that topic. In fact I won't tell apart 360 from that new Nintendo's box. But I have some knowledge on CPU architectures, and I can tell you, that there nothing like "comparable technology" playing any significant role. The technology more or less is same, but even if you take a look at modern personal computer/server CPUs - there is nothing comparable. Having the same clock speed, processors can give benchmarks _several_times_ different one from another. Just to make my point more clear - you can't compare different platforms only by their CPU clock speed. Period. It will not give you any meaningful results, or something to draw any conclusions of. Well if those clock speeds, were different by order of magnitude, I would say you might use it as measure, because no architecture will give you such performance range, but you are talking about numbers that are almost equal! You shouldn't even be surprised if "slower" (in your terms) platform will outperform other.
I'm sorry,you are completely wrong. Those number (clock speed) can't be compared _at_all_ on processors with different architectures. For example one CPU can perform only one simple operation during the CPU cycle and need to fetch each instruction from RAM, while other may perform dozen operations of different pipes and stages, take instruction from light-speed fast cache and predict most of the branches. That's just example, but it not far from the truth. CPU clock speed all alone can tell you _nothing_ about performance of the system. Even if you take into account the architecture, clock speed, RAM speed, main board and buses architecture, etc. you can tell nothing, because in order to compare, you have to run real benchmarks, because some architectures outperform others easily on some tasks, and lose on others.
Really, I don't understand what all this noise around for? There is nothing to do for the Microsoft now - the code is out, and there is no way to stop it from spreading now. Thousands of people has already downloaded it, and it widely spread on p2p networks. :) ).
BTW, just take look how many sources you can find for file:0 7|34BB9F3A3E8D3E0C4490A96EC30B9F3C|/
I think all this warnings - it's just about PR. Microsoft needs to show that they trying to do something, and not just sitting and watching the code spread (what, actually, all they can do
ed2k://|file|windows_2000_source_code.zip|2137482
:)