True enough, though to be honest I'm considering a switch. If I can use this on my existing video platform (x86, not Mac), and speed it up by simply switching the OS, I'll be happy to.
The only gotcha for me is application support. I use premeir currently and I am lothe to switch. If they had a 30 day before I shelled out $130 or so I'd be happy to try their apps and decide. -nB
I don't know how to breal it to you but those are one and the same processors.
I have a 1.6 GHz P4-M (as opposed to a P3-M) With either a Std batter and no DVD (just a spacer) or with the extended primary battery and a DVD I get 6-8 hours. Replace the DVD with an extra battery and use the extended primary battery and I push 9+ hours. It's all in the hardware implementation of power management. Also the chipset used makes a huge difference. -nB
The score is public domain, the performance is not, thus: should you desire you could re-construct the score from the performance and re-perform it yourself and be in the clear. You can not, however, distribute a copy of the performance without the performance owners permission (which has been granted de facto by its posting on the web by the performance owner). -nB
Different code is not surprising, nor is it wrong. As I pointed out here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&cid =13043743 The most likely answer (IMHO) is that they produce optimized code for their chips and use the _most compatible_ path for other producers' chips. The most compatible path is not the fastest, but it guarantees they don't have to worry about their compiler breaking on any other CPU. That they don't optimize for AMD _at all_ is not their problem. Their goal is to optimize code for their platform and not break on anybody else's nothing more and nothing less. -nB
I don't know the anser but what about some of the weider ones out there: IDT Winchip, Cyrix 486/133 and other oddball cpus?
My point is that I don't believe Intel intentionally broke the compiler for AMD, I think they took the approach of supporting their hardware fully, while using the _most compatible_ paths for everyone else. If that is what they did then AMD's argument is worthless. That doesn't change the end result, but it does insulate Intel from any legal wrongdoing. -nB
The simple fact is that the compiler does something along the lines of the following: if (CPUID == Intel){optimize} else{generic x86 code to support all other processors/*AMD, VIA, Transmetta, etc.*/}
It is in this way that Intel can optimize their processors without worrying about anything else. -nB
No, but the licence for the BIOS code or whatever that locks OSX to compatible hardware could be pricy enough to make the machines more expensive;) -nB
Slashdot Mirror
and based on your sig I have a pretty good idea what the gun will be doing :P
-nB
True enough, though to be honest I'm considering a switch. If I can use this on my existing video platform (x86, not Mac), and speed it up by simply switching the OS, I'll be happy to.
The only gotcha for me is application support. I use premeir currently and I am lothe to switch. If they had a 30 day before I shelled out $130 or so I'd be happy to try their apps and decide.
-nB
dude, e-mail me and I'll hook you up with whatever RAM you need. how's a dime a meg sound?
-nB, admin at above domain.
dude, call a shrink. :)
I think it may actually be needed in this case
-nB
Start your own project looking for scans of pre-gutenberg texts?
;)
That is something I've wanted to do for a while. Just email admin at my domain above
-nB
I'm thinking finally an e-book I could like.
100 pages and when you reach the end, just download the next 100 pages into the book.
-nB
Not that that excuses it. It is against the law, (c)law, and that same law does in fact provision for fines and jail time.
-nB
from: http://www.intel.com/products/processor/index.htm? iid=HPAGE+header_products_processors&
Notebook
Intel® Pentium® M Processor
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor-M
Intel® Celeron® M Processor
Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
Thus P4-m. Please avoid correcting people without checking.
I don't know how to breal it to you but those are one and the same processors.
I have a 1.6 GHz P4-M (as opposed to a P3-M)
With either a Std batter and no DVD (just a spacer) or with the extended primary battery and a DVD I get 6-8 hours. Replace the DVD with an extra battery and use the extended primary battery and I push 9+ hours.
It's all in the hardware implementation of power management. Also the chipset used makes a huge difference.
-nB
just one battery.
-nB
IBM T40 with nothing in the ultrabay (just the spacer).
or with the DVD-RW and the extended primary battery.
-nB
I get 7 hours on my p4-m notebook.
so I'm thinking they may see an increase.
-nB
Basically here is how it works in this case:
The score is public domain, the performance is not, thus:
should you desire you could re-construct the score from the performance and re-perform it yourself and be in the clear. You can not, however, distribute a copy of the performance without the performance owners permission (which has been granted de facto by its posting on the web by the performance owner).
-nB
Linux?
Well I think they got it wrong.
It's most obviously the stupidest lawsuit since the whole friggen universe began.
-nB
that is the single most absurd thing I've ever read.
-nB
That's actually not a bad idea. It may make them think a bit more about what they are doing.
-nB
Different code is not surprising, nor is it wrong.d =13043743
As I pointed out here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155593&ci
The most likely answer (IMHO) is that they produce optimized code for their chips and use the _most compatible_ path for other producers' chips. The most compatible path is not the fastest, but it guarantees they don't have to worry about their compiler breaking on any other CPU. That they don't optimize for AMD _at all_ is not their problem. Their goal is to optimize code for their platform and not break on anybody else's nothing more and nothing less.
-nB
I don't know the anser but what about some of the weider ones out there:
IDT Winchip, Cyrix 486/133 and other oddball cpus?
My point is that I don't believe Intel intentionally broke the compiler for AMD, I think they took the approach of supporting their hardware fully, while using the _most compatible_ paths for everyone else. If that is what they did then AMD's argument is worthless. That doesn't change the end result, but it does insulate Intel from any legal wrongdoing.
-nB
It's not coincidence, nor is it malice.
/*AMD, VIA, Transmetta, etc.*/}
The simple fact is that the compiler does something along the lines of the following:
if (CPUID == Intel){optimize}
else{generic x86 code to support all other processors
It is in this way that Intel can optimize their processors without worrying about anything else.
-nB
Ditto, unless it's a one liner, thus:
if(cond)
{
foo
bar
baz
}
or:
if(cond){bash};
You took away a potential profit.
Before you argue that you wouln't buy it anyway, why are you even using it then?
Piracy == theft. The sense of entitlement I saw posted earlier applies more to the users of stolen software than the makers of said software.
-nB
"That is an impressive bit of engineering."
and cool. Mustn't forget cool.
Too bad it won't be in the states till it's obs.
-nB
Funny I picked Dell for price to run OSX on in this thread:c id=12815564
:-)
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152674&
From the first OSX on x86 story.
I guess I beat them to the punch, I should become an analyst
-nB
No, but the licence for the BIOS code or whatever that locks OSX to compatible hardware could be pricy enough to make the machines more expensive ;)
-nB