They optimized the P4 for clock speed AT THE EXPENSE of performance, and you say that's not misleading, when you know that almost all consumers only look at the megahertz rating?
I wasn't referring to price, which isn't a fair comparison as the Ferrari is much more luxurious than the 'Vette, which is just a go-fast. My point was that claiming that AMD using performance ratings instead of megaherz as misleading is specious, as comparing megaherz to determine processor speed is akin to comparing engine displacement to measure engine power.
OT: Yes, if all you want is a lot of speed, a 'Vette or even Camaro SS is a much better investment than a Ferrari. The true value of a Ferrari cannot be understood until you've felt the F1 shifter from carbon fiber seats. Really, a WHOLE lot more than a 50hp difference...
Intel isn't lying about clock speed, per se, but their chips ARE designed to ramp the clock speed up at the expense of actual performance. They did this because they know that MHz is what sells to consumers, nothing else. They market their higher-clocked processors as unquestionably faster in everything than a Thunderbird, since the Thunderbird has a lower MHz rating. THAT is dirty.
Engine size matters, but it's not the only thing. As I stated above, Corvettes come with 5.7 liters, Ferrari 360 comes with 3.6. Want to guess which kicks the other's ass?
Megaherx would be more akin to buying a car based on liters of engine. For example, a Corvette has a 5.7 liter engine, and a Ferrari 360 has a 3.6. Which do you think is faster? That's right, the Ferrari, because its engine is more efficient per liter. However, when we measure the power of a car, we measure it in horsepower or torque, not liters. Given the vast differences in processor efficiency, it would be nice if it were possible to find something comparable to horsepower to compare processors by.
Rice rockets can go nice and fast, if they're GOOD ones, you just have to drive them right. American sports cars aren't clearly superior, they're 2 different approaches to sportiness, so don't act like your personal favorite is the only valid approach.
Yup, you do get roughly double the effective memory speed. The previous poster was discussing performance, how fast various programs actually run, and that gave Rambus a slight advantage in certain real benchmarks, back when it cost >10x more than SDRAM.
And you think that if they stop teaching computers they'll start teaching kids to think? It's dangerous to them, I was in school before computers were popular, and we weren't taught to think.
Don't be a prick, you shouldn't have to fight spiders out of your webpage. If your robots.txt tells spiders to ignore your page, then your page should be ignored, not blindly indexed due to the fact that robots.txt is not "protection."
NT5, unfortunately, isn't fully unified, most drivers from 9X and a lot of applications refused to work. XP does NOT have these issues, I have not seen anything fail to work from either 9X or NT.
It's not like Dells started blazing in people's laps, the batteries, which come from ANOTHER company, caught fire, as I recall, once or twice, total. Not Dell's fault.
If the software in question were named KAdobe Illustrator, you would have a point. However, Coke is the distinctive part of the Coca-Cola name, as Adobe is the distinctive part of Adobe Illustrator. Neither Coca-Cola nor Pepsi-Cola owns the ability to call a malty soda "cola." Cola is a generic term, as is illustrator, and one product using a generic term should not ban its use in other products.
And Illustrator is a generic name for a person or object that creates drawings. Unlike Xerox and Kleenex, the word illustrator did not come from any particular brand name, and thus any entity that creates a program to help draw should be allowed to have the word "illustrator" in the title.
Fuel IS a precious resource. You don't think so because its monetary value is low at the moment, but there can be no doubt that we are using it at a far greater rate than it is being created, which means that at some point in the future we will run completely out. Also, the ecological impact of drilling for the additional oil to fuel those SUVs is quite significant, especially since the remaining large oil reserves are in distant, pristine areas of wildlife. You're not thinking of the entire impact of burning oil.
-----------------------
Re:Tell me what THIS is good for?
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
Just as an aside, the Italian supercars get milage as good as most SUVs, and have very low emissions. I forget the exact milage, but it's in the mid-upper teens, and Ferraris at least have hardly measurable emissions of any kind.
-----------------------
Re:The only thing that helps is taxes
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
You make the distiction between funcitonal and luxury SUVs, but fail to continue the though. No rural type is going to use a Lincoln Navigator/Cadillac Escalade/Mercedes RX-300/any other luxury SUV, as they're not much more road-worthy than any regular car, yet these same vehicles are still exempt on the basis of having "legitimate business uses." Is this still "intellectually void SUV bashing?"
However, their point is that you driving a SUV affects more than you, it also has a higher impact on the world that they live in. You choose a large car because it's your "right," but it degrades the world THEY live in. Their belief is that you don't have the right to callously lower their standard of living by your choices, and I must agree.
-----------------------
Re:Torching a car dealership is ecological ?
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Driving a large car for safety is a cop-out. It makes you more likely to kill someone else if you get in an accident, and before you even think of saying that if everyone drove large cars everyone would be safer, not everyone can afford them, and there would be serious problems with country roads and parking spaces. Also, if you slam into someone else, and don't say you know you won't, you're more likely to kill that person. Further, large vehicles are a danger at intersections, where they make it harder to see what's coming. Driving a large car is irresonsible unless you actually consistently need to carry large amounts of cargo or people.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, cause the Bitboys Oy are so likely to burst on the scene finally...
They optimized the P4 for clock speed AT THE EXPENSE of performance, and you say that's not misleading, when you know that almost all consumers only look at the megahertz rating?
Thinking you can do anything you want to anyone else cause you're the biggest kid on the block is called being a bully.
I wasn't referring to price, which isn't a fair comparison as the Ferrari is much more luxurious than the 'Vette, which is just a go-fast. My point was that claiming that AMD using performance ratings instead of megaherz as misleading is specious, as comparing megaherz to determine processor speed is akin to comparing engine displacement to measure engine power.
OT: Yes, if all you want is a lot of speed, a 'Vette or even Camaro SS is a much better investment than a Ferrari. The true value of a Ferrari cannot be understood until you've felt the F1 shifter from carbon fiber seats. Really, a WHOLE lot more than a 50hp difference...
60GXP is a model line, not a model by itself. Yours would be a 20GB 60GXP, as opposed to a 30 or 45.
Intel isn't lying about clock speed, per se, but their chips ARE designed to ramp the clock speed up at the expense of actual performance. They did this because they know that MHz is what sells to consumers, nothing else. They market their higher-clocked processors as unquestionably faster in everything than a Thunderbird, since the Thunderbird has a lower MHz rating. THAT is dirty.
Engine size matters, but it's not the only thing. As I stated above, Corvettes come with 5.7 liters, Ferrari 360 comes with 3.6. Want to guess which kicks the other's ass?
Megaherx would be more akin to buying a car based on liters of engine. For example, a Corvette has a 5.7 liter engine, and a Ferrari 360 has a 3.6. Which do you think is faster? That's right, the Ferrari, because its engine is more efficient per liter. However, when we measure the power of a car, we measure it in horsepower or torque, not liters. Given the vast differences in processor efficiency, it would be nice if it were possible to find something comparable to horsepower to compare processors by.
Rice rockets can go nice and fast, if they're GOOD ones, you just have to drive them right. American sports cars aren't clearly superior, they're 2 different approaches to sportiness, so don't act like your personal favorite is the only valid approach.
Yup, you do get roughly double the effective memory speed. The previous poster was discussing performance, how fast various programs actually run, and that gave Rambus a slight advantage in certain real benchmarks, back when it cost >10x more than SDRAM.
There was a time when 24 hours would have killed me. Bad idea...
Fuckhead.
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------