Someone needs to build a card that draws single digit wattage and will drive 2048x1536 displays, and they will sell loads of them.
Someone does, but it's not cheap (Pentium M chipset) and it plays Doom 3 like a slideshow. According to Intel's datasheet, the 915GM chipset has a TDP of 6.0 watts. The chipset's GMA 900 graphics displays 2048x1536 at 85 Hz.
I cannot be the only one sick of the jet engine noise and space heater performance.
Ya know, like an Mac Mini, only with high resolution.
Right now, the dual processor system is a fundamental difference between their low-end (iMac, Mac Mini) and high-end (PowerMac) desktop systems. Because the high-end systems are much more expensive, the need is going to continue for this kind of differentiation.
I think Apple will also need to differentiate (in hardware specs) between high-end PowerMacs and high-end (and less expensive) Wintel PCs. When Apple completes the trasition to Intel CPUs, I think they can still charge a premium for the "Apple experience," but not the premium they enjoy now using a different CPU architecture. The glaring price difference between a 3GHz Dell and a 3GHz PowerMac will be more difficult to explain if they are using the same CPU. A dual-processor desktop (that's not a dual-Xeon workstation) can be the difference Apple needs.
However, I think Apple will need to design their own dual-Pentium chipset if they go this route. Currently, Intel's high-end desktop and low-end workstation platform is limited to a single high-end Pentium CPU. If you want dual Intel processors, you need to move up to the expensive Xeon workstation platform.
I have no doubt at all that you'll see dual dual core in these systems even when the leap is taken to Pentium.
I'm not that certain, but I can see it happening if Apple can design a dual-CPU Pentium chipset in time. I think it's possible we'll see single-core Pentium Mac minis, dual-core Pentium iMacs, dual-CPU Pentium PowerMacs, and dual-Xeon XServes.
I'm also planning on checking out Fedora Core (not tonight) and came across a March 2005 TechBuilder | Recipe article that might be helpful. It shows step-by-step how to install MPlayer w/codecs (video), RealPlayer, xine (DVD), and Flash Player on FC2 (using yum):
Painless Multimedia For Linux: Getting all the needed software can be a hassle. Here's where to look--and how to get it running
I liked (as in didn't hate and enjoyed watching) treasure planet and atlantis as well. Is there some fundamental reason why I shouldn't have?
Not at all. If you follow the story's links for those movies, you'd see that 57.4% voters on that sight gave Treasure Planet a "grade" of A or B, and 61% gave Atlantis an A or B. However, both movies were financial failures in large part due to their sky-high production and (ineffective) marketing costs.
The story's submitter described those movies as a "pathetic failure" and an "epic disaster." He was probably just describing their box office performance. If not, then he's an "epic, pathetic moron."
Look at the cool shit they have every year at the Intel Developer Forum. Look how little of it has been adopted into the mainstream (BTX for example).
I agree, except for the BTX example. I think BTX is being adopted (gradually) by the mainstream. We can't just expect them to drop all of their proven, mature ATX designs right away for newly designed BTX cases. For mainstream BTX that's already been released, see:
Based upon the specs and pictures of the box the Intel PowerMac it is most likely an Intel Desktop Board D915GUX.
Actually, based on the specs you linked to, I think it's more likely an Intel D945GTP motherboard. The necessary features that the D945GTP has built-in (and the D915GUX lacks) are SATA-2 (945 chipset) and FireWire 400.
The D945GTP also accepts dual-core processors. I bet someone will needlessly benchmark a dual-core Pentium D OS X development system against a dual-processor G5 PowerMac.
Not to mention that their $999 lease is not much of an obstacle for serious developers.
For serious Apple developers, yes. However, the $999 lease (must give back PC) plus $500/yr ADC Select membership might seem like a needlessly high expense to an independent developer (e.g. a hobbyist Linux developer), when a development box very similar to Apple's (w/o SuperDrive, keyboard/mouse) can be built for less than $600 from Newegg.com parts (and you get to keep your self-built PC).
Another comment shows that Apple's development PC is very likely a Pentium 600 series PC using an Intel D915GUX motherboard. I built a quick Newegg "barebones Apple development machine" (no SuperDrive, keyboard/mouse) for less than $600.
Western Digital Caviar SE WD800JD 80GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive ($60)
IN WIN Z Series IW-Z720T.I300BFU2AD Black Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case 300W Power Supply ($44.99)
Illegally downloaded developer version of Tiger for x86 (free)
Total: $540.98 before tax and shipping
Add $500 for an ADC Select membership if it's absolutely necessary. When the development version of OS X expires, the self-built PC can continue to be used as a Linux development PC (or whatever).
And except that he hasn't got a bad-boy image, and seems a genuinely nice-guy with some actual talent... nerd sounds like an awful stretch.
When Tiger was a freshman at Stanford, he was 6'2 140lbs, wore very thick glasses off the course (-11 nearsitedness), suffered from allergies, and (according to his college teammates) was an awful dancer. His college teammates called him "Urkel".
The Tiger Woods we see today is largely the result of Lasik surgery, strenuous weight training, and an image that is carefully controlled by IMG.
Yes, at the >$600 per CPU price point, AMD dual core chips will wipe the floor with Intel dual core chips when they start shipping next week. But for mid-range desktops, the best dual core bang-for-the-buck comes from the $300 Pentium D 820, which is shipping now in boxed form from Newegg and in systems from Dell.
Who buys mid-range computers from Dell? Lots of people. Who buys high end computers with $600 CPUs? Not a lot. But in the long run, I don't know how much this matters.
Communication efficiency and information sharing between the two cores.
On AMD Dual Cores, there is a specific bus for communication between cores and with the memory module, while in Intel types they have to use the main bus.
So intel choice for Netburst dual core lowers the total efficiency (since the cores have to share with the rest of the system, situation akin to regular dual processors) while AMD dual cores have a special bus which is even faster than the regular main bus, lowering latency and increasing communication capacities between the cores
A recent CNET News article describes Yonah's (dual-core Dothan) 2MB cache being shared between the two cores, rather than having 512KB - 1MB cache dedicated to each core (like Pentium D and Athlon 64 X2). If you believe the Intel rep's hype, the improved communication between the cores and shared 2MB cache should boost performance "something crazy" over caches dedicated to each core. We'll see.
The funny thing is that AMD is planning on releasing Quad Core chips in Q1 2006. Intel's DC Dothan may be too little, too late.
Do you really think AMD and chipset makers can deliver 65nm quad core CPUs to the desktop platform (Athlon, not Opteron) in the same time frame that Intel can deliver a desktop version of Yonah? Intel has been showing prototypes of Yonah since February and will supposedly ship Yonah to notebook manufacturers in Q4 2005. AMD hasn't shown or officially announced the availability of their quad core CPU, except for some hints to an Inquirer reporter at a trade show.
my current laptop is a toshiba satelite a75 series. circa end of 2004 batery life: 2 hours on "long life" mode. my very first laptop was a toshiba t-1000 circa 1980-something(late 80's) battery life: hours and hours... how is that a longer life?
Initially, Pentium M/Celeron M notebooks carried a notable price difference over Pentium 4/Celeron notebooks. But by the end of 2004, Pentium M technology had made its way all the way down to sub-$1000 notebooks (Celeron M). By that time, only "desktop replacements" (and older discontinued models) were using Pentium 4 CPUs. For the same price as that Toshiba Pentium 4-based notebook, I think you would have been much better off (with much longer battery life) with a Pentium M-based, or even Celeron M-based, notebook.
- A switch to Intel CPUs. That likely means Pentium-M or Celeron-M in their small-form-factor (Mini, iMac, eMac) and notebook (iBook, PowerBook) computers, and potentially Pentium-4 in their desktop line.
Don't forget that this transition will likely be taking place from mid-2006 (low end) to mid-2007 (high end). From the article:
Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.
That likely means (for the high end) some next-generation Intel CPUs like Merom (notebooks) and Conroe (desktops). On the other hand, the PowerBook seems to be the Mac most in need of a modern CPU, so I can't see Apple waiting for Merom (due H1 2006) or a low-heat G5. If these crazy "Intel inside Mac" rumors are true, I think Apple would want Yonah (dual-core 65nm Pentium M) inside the PowerBook.
Right now the Pentium M is Intel's most expensive CPU, and there's really no alternative to it if Apple wants an Intel CPU in the Mac mini
There's the Celeron M, which is based on the current Pentium M core (Dothan). A quick Froogle search will find boxed Celeron M processors selling for less than $100.
If the CNET article is correct and the Mac mini is one of the first to adopt Intel chips (in 2006), then I'm sure it will use the Celeron M. By early 2006, the Dothan-based Celeron M will be previous-generation technology, just like the G4 is today. Apple should have no problem fitting the Celeron M into the tiny form factor for less than $500.
It would be nice if companies now concentrated on size and quietness rather than mhz. If my next PC was smaller than a shoebox (and just as expandable) then I'd be there in a shot.
Is Shuttle's XPC SB86i small enough (14.8" x 9.4" x 7.6")? It's very quiet (using the picoBTX standard) but only has one PCI slot and one x16 PCI Express slot. It's not that cheap, either.
If you like to build your own, its about $300 (barebones) at Newegg. If you don't, Shuttle sells a complete 3.0GHz P4 XPC based on the SB86i for about $1100 ($100 less if you dont need MS Office).
PicoBTX is nice but given the acceptance of the small form factor ATX systems, I don't see how picoBTX is different enough to be more accepted.
I thought the (supposed) advantage of picoBTX was the efficient cooling system that's already part of the spec, which can be easily (and cheaply) implemented by any case maker. The components that need cooling (CPU, chipset, and GPU) are in-line with the BTX airflow and the fan/heatsink/thermal module is part of the CPU.
Quiet small form factor ATX systems tend to have specially designed (and expensive) cooling systems (like Shuttle's ICE heat pipe) and specially designed cases/PSUs. Most of the other SFF ATX systems that have tried to copy Shuttle's success are too noisy or hot. From what I've seen, none of them are cheap.
I thought the hard part of designing a SFF PC (quiet cooling) was already taken care of in the picoBTX spec. Note that Shuttle's picoBTX system is their only XPC that doesn't use their ICE heat pipe. If picoBTX gets more accepted, we should see more inexpensive, tiny, quiet picoBTX systems from a number of case manufacturers. But where the heck are they? Even Intel doesn't offer a picoBTX motherboard yet.
See how the 3200+ running at "just" 2Ghz is outperforming even a 3.4Ghz P4 and sometimes even a 3.5 or 3.6Ghz P4.
We're talking about dual core chips and those are single core, single-threaded benchmarks (gaming). I think those graphs are only relevent if you're using single-threaded applications or single-tasking. Dual-core chips would see very little improvement in those graphs.
Their cheap single core chips will wipe the plate with the low-ball PD and will be cheaper as well...
Not in heavily multithreaded apps and multitasking scenarios, which are the only reasons we'd be buying dual-core chips. See how in heavily multithreaded apps (like Data Analysis, DivX Encoding, and 3dsmax 6) and multitasking scenarios (like Anandtech's custom multitasking benchmarks), a 3.2GHz Pentium D performs much better than an Athlon 64 FX-55.
Also look at how a 2.8Ghz P4 isn't even on the charts... use your brain and extrapolate from the P4's what the 2.8Ghz P4 would be posting and you can see that it is WAY slower than even a 2Ghz Athlon64.
Although the dual-core charts do not include the 2.8GHz Pentium D, use your brain and extrapolate... you can see that it is WAY faster than AMD's "cheap single core chips" in multitasking and multithreaded scenarios.
I agree with most of your points. AMD offers better peformance/price for single core chips and dual core chips over $500. However, you based your arguments on single core benchmarks.
one thing good about igp's is that you don't need to upgrade all your shit at one time. buy a mobo now, and use the igp until you find the video card you want at a nice price.
As others have pointed out, not all motherboards with integrated graphics have an AGP or PCI Express x16 slot. So if future upgrades are important, choose wisely. However, if you're not a hardcore gamer, I'm guessing NVIDIA and ATI will continue making decent PCI (or PCI Express x1) versions of their low end, current-generation cards.
Today I can build a cheap PC with a 945G-based motherboard (GMA 950 graphics) and an $82 Celeron CPU. I can later upgrade that PC to a dual-core Pentium D and the latest PCI Express x16 graphics card.
I still hoping for IGP and cheaper CPUs for socket 939.
In short, MMX was a lame duck, but was hyped to a huge extent by Intel. The shortcomings of MMX have (at least partially) been addressed in subsequent x86 vector units, but by that time it was too late. If you are doing scientific computing, and can target your code to a particular CPU, this is fine, but who[1] has the effort to optimise code for MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3dNow!, etc?
On the Mac, AltiVec was the first vector unit to be released, and was of a very high, proven, quality. Subsequent chips have retained compatibility with exactly the same vector ISA, meaning that everything written for a G4's vector unit will gain the same benefit on a G5[2].
Intel's SSE3 is a superset of SSE2 which is a superset of SSE which is a superset of MMX. Everything written for MMX will gain the same benefit on SSE, and everything written for SSE... we know the logic. I don't see the difficulty here.
AMD's 3dNow!, on the other hand, was decent (and came before SSE and Altivec) but not used much because of AMD's weak presense at the time (K6-2). AMD has since adopted Intel's SIMD instructions, so very few people target 3dNow!.
I'm not saying SSE3 is any better or worse than Altivec (or that MMX was not overhyped), but I don't understand why SSE/SSE2/SSE3 were "too late" or difficult to target your code for.
Am I the only person who wants ECC in mainstream desktop chipsets?
No, but I think there are very few of us. I think most of the people who want ECC RAM for their desktop PCs want it for their "workstations," not "mainstream desktops." Heck, even some "workstations" don't support ECC RAM.
I kit out all my new machines with at least 1GB RAM and I want long uptimes on all my Windows, Linux and FreeBSD machines. I really want ECC RAM, but it seems that only Intel's server chipsets support it.
Not only Intel's server chipsets. Intel's 955X chipset supports ECC RAM and it's a "performance desktop/workstation" chipset. Unfortunately, 955X motherboards seem to carry about a $100 price premium over their "mainstream" counterparts. The ASUS P5WD2 Premium supports ECC RAM and costs $230 at Chiefvalue (Newegg's sister site). You can even put a lowly Celeron D in it.
That's not the only reason Apple might be considering using Intel chips. An Intel chipmight be a better and more modern solution for some Apple hardware. I think that "cheaper Mac mini" comment was just fun speculation by the submitter.
Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.
Not all of Intel's stuff. The Pentium M and Mobile 915 chipset were designed specifically for notebooks and run very cool (unlike the Pentium 4 architecture). Just this past January, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations called a PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges." A Pentium M PowerBook would not be a thermal challenge at all.
For desktops and servers, the G5 is great and I see no good reason to use Intel chips for those platforms. For 1" think PowerBooks, however, the G5 may never be a good solution because of thermal challenges. The G4 processor is so slow and outdated (but maybe "good enough" for now), that Intel's budget notebook processor, the Pentium M-based Celeron M, is better than the fastest G4.
And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?
That's a good point, and I have no idea. That's why I say the Pentium M might be a good chip for PowerBooks.
selection:
1&2) Netflix, Greencine. GC has a better anime selection for now, as well as more hard to find foreign titles. Netflix has much better availability on almost every title it actually stocks, and is edging up on the anime. But it's still not there with foreign titles, either. Best selection for most people, however.
Um, I'm not suggesting Slashdot readers watch porn. However, Greencine (unlike the others) actually stocks movies of the "Adult" genre. Maybe this should be mentioned when talking about "selection."
I apologize in advance for suggesting that some Slashdot readers watch porn.
Your newscientist.com link doesn't work for me (Slashdotted?), so here's some alternate links for information on the hard-coating technology for Blu-ray media (it's called "Durabis"):
In my mind as an IT person, one of the chief advantages of a Mac is that you can boot any Mac with built-in FireWire from a FireWire disk - including an iPod... I don't know if the same thing is possible with USB and PCs, but I know that trying to recover Windows 2000 by using a FireWire disk enclosure is impossible, and I assume this holds true for XP as well.
I'm not an "IT person," but doesn't this KB article say it is possible to recover Windows 2000 by using a FireWire disk enclosure? From the article:
You can use IEEE 1394 hard disks for the Windows 2000 system and boot partitions, as well as normal storage. To use these drives for the system or boot partition, the computer's BIOS must have IEEE 1394 boot support.
In other words, I think it depends on the hardware (FireWire controller) and BIOS (Firmware on Macs) more than the OS. I'd think any modern OS (like Windows 2000 or OS X) would support this if the FireWire controller and BIOS/Firware supported it. A built-in FireWire controller is more likely to support this than a PCI card.
Again, I'm not an "IT person." Sorry if I'm not talking about the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone does, but it's not cheap (Pentium M chipset) and it plays Doom 3 like a slideshow. According to Intel's datasheet, the 915GM chipset has a TDP of 6.0 watts. The chipset's GMA 900 graphics displays 2048x1536 at 85 Hz.
I cannot be the only one sick of the jet engine noise and space heater performance.
Ya know, like an Mac Mini, only with high resolution.
That Aopen board is microATX, but the Mac mini look-alike that Slashdot covered uses the same chipset, so it should display 2048x1536.
I think Apple will also need to differentiate (in hardware specs) between high-end PowerMacs and high-end (and less expensive) Wintel PCs. When Apple completes the trasition to Intel CPUs, I think they can still charge a premium for the "Apple experience," but not the premium they enjoy now using a different CPU architecture. The glaring price difference between a 3GHz Dell and a 3GHz PowerMac will be more difficult to explain if they are using the same CPU. A dual-processor desktop (that's not a dual-Xeon workstation) can be the difference Apple needs.
However, I think Apple will need to design their own dual-Pentium chipset if they go this route. Currently, Intel's high-end desktop and low-end workstation platform is limited to a single high-end Pentium CPU. If you want dual Intel processors, you need to move up to the expensive Xeon workstation platform.
I have no doubt at all that you'll see dual dual core in these systems even when the leap is taken to Pentium.
I'm not that certain, but I can see it happening if Apple can design a dual-CPU Pentium chipset in time. I think it's possible we'll see single-core Pentium Mac minis, dual-core Pentium iMacs, dual-CPU Pentium PowerMacs, and dual-Xeon XServes.
Not at all. If you follow the story's links for those movies, you'd see that 57.4% voters on that sight gave Treasure Planet a "grade" of A or B, and 61% gave Atlantis an A or B. However, both movies were financial failures in large part due to their sky-high production and (ineffective) marketing costs.
The story's submitter described those movies as a "pathetic failure" and an "epic disaster." He was probably just describing their box office performance. If not, then he's an "epic, pathetic moron."
I agree, except for the BTX example. I think BTX is being adopted (gradually) by the mainstream. We can't just expect them to drop all of their proven, mature ATX designs right away for newly designed BTX cases. For mainstream BTX that's already been released, see:
Actually, based on the specs you linked to, I think it's more likely an Intel D945GTP motherboard. The necessary features that the D945GTP has built-in (and the D915GUX lacks) are SATA-2 (945 chipset) and FireWire 400.
The D945GTP also accepts dual-core processors. I bet someone will needlessly benchmark a dual-core Pentium D OS X development system against a dual-processor G5 PowerMac.
For serious Apple developers, yes. However, the $999 lease (must give back PC) plus $500/yr ADC Select membership might seem like a needlessly high expense to an independent developer (e.g. a hobbyist Linux developer), when a development box very similar to Apple's (w/o SuperDrive, keyboard/mouse) can be built for less than $600 from Newegg.com parts (and you get to keep your self-built PC).
Another comment shows that Apple's development PC is very likely a Pentium 600 series PC using an Intel D915GUX motherboard. I built a quick Newegg "barebones Apple development machine" (no SuperDrive, keyboard/mouse) for less than $600.
- intel BOXD915GUXLK Intel 915G Micro ATX Intel Motherboard ($115)
- intel Pentium 4 630 EM64T Processor ($228.99)
- CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB (2 x 512MB) DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit ($92)
- Western Digital Caviar SE WD800JD 80GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive ($60)
- IN WIN Z Series IW-Z720T.I300BFU2AD Black Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case 300W Power Supply ($44.99)
- Illegally downloaded developer version of Tiger for x86 (free)
- Total: $540.98 before tax and shipping
Add $500 for an ADC Select membership if it's absolutely necessary. When the development version of OS X expires, the self-built PC can continue to be used as a Linux development PC (or whatever).And except that he hasn't got a bad-boy image, and seems a genuinely nice-guy with some actual talent ... nerd sounds like an awful stretch.
When Tiger was a freshman at Stanford, he was 6'2 140lbs, wore very thick glasses off the course (-11 nearsitedness), suffered from allergies, and (according to his college teammates) was an awful dancer. His college teammates called him "Urkel".
The Tiger Woods we see today is largely the result of Lasik surgery, strenuous weight training, and an image that is carefully controlled by IMG.
Who buys mid-range computers from Dell? Lots of people. Who buys high end computers with $600 CPUs? Not a lot. But in the long run, I don't know how much this matters.
On AMD Dual Cores, there is a specific bus for communication between cores and with the memory module, while in Intel types they have to use the main bus.
So intel choice for Netburst dual core lowers the total efficiency (since the cores have to share with the rest of the system, situation akin to regular dual processors) while AMD dual cores have a special bus which is even faster than the regular main bus, lowering latency and increasing communication capacities between the cores
A recent CNET News article describes Yonah's (dual-core Dothan) 2MB cache being shared between the two cores, rather than having 512KB - 1MB cache dedicated to each core (like Pentium D and Athlon 64 X2). If you believe the Intel rep's hype, the improved communication between the cores and shared 2MB cache should boost performance "something crazy" over caches dedicated to each core. We'll see.
Do you really think AMD and chipset makers can deliver 65nm quad core CPUs to the desktop platform (Athlon, not Opteron) in the same time frame that Intel can deliver a desktop version of Yonah? Intel has been showing prototypes of Yonah since February and will supposedly ship Yonah to notebook manufacturers in Q4 2005. AMD hasn't shown or officially announced the availability of their quad core CPU, except for some hints to an Inquirer reporter at a trade show.
You value battery life, but you bought a "mobile" Pentium 4 laptop instead of a Pentium M or Celeron M laptop at the end of 2004? It's not like the power-saving features of Centrino haven't been publicized and hyped since March 2003.
Initially, Pentium M/Celeron M notebooks carried a notable price difference over Pentium 4/Celeron notebooks. But by the end of 2004, Pentium M technology had made its way all the way down to sub-$1000 notebooks (Celeron M). By that time, only "desktop replacements" (and older discontinued models) were using Pentium 4 CPUs. For the same price as that Toshiba Pentium 4-based notebook, I think you would have been much better off (with much longer battery life) with a Pentium M-based, or even Celeron M-based, notebook.
Don't forget that this transition will likely be taking place from mid-2006 (low end) to mid-2007 (high end). From the article:
That likely means (for the high end) some next-generation Intel CPUs like Merom (notebooks) and Conroe (desktops). On the other hand, the PowerBook seems to be the Mac most in need of a modern CPU, so I can't see Apple waiting for Merom (due H1 2006) or a low-heat G5. If these crazy "Intel inside Mac" rumors are true, I think Apple would want Yonah (dual-core 65nm Pentium M) inside the PowerBook.There's the Celeron M, which is based on the current Pentium M core (Dothan). A quick Froogle search will find boxed Celeron M processors selling for less than $100.
If the CNET article is correct and the Mac mini is one of the first to adopt Intel chips (in 2006), then I'm sure it will use the Celeron M. By early 2006, the Dothan-based Celeron M will be previous-generation technology, just like the G4 is today. Apple should have no problem fitting the Celeron M into the tiny form factor for less than $500.
Is Shuttle's XPC SB86i small enough (14.8" x 9.4" x 7.6")? It's very quiet (using the picoBTX standard) but only has one PCI slot and one x16 PCI Express slot. It's not that cheap, either.
If you like to build your own, its about $300 (barebones) at Newegg. If you don't, Shuttle sells a complete 3.0GHz P4 XPC based on the SB86i for about $1100 ($100 less if you dont need MS Office).
I thought the (supposed) advantage of picoBTX was the efficient cooling system that's already part of the spec, which can be easily (and cheaply) implemented by any case maker. The components that need cooling (CPU, chipset, and GPU) are in-line with the BTX airflow and the fan/heatsink/thermal module is part of the CPU.
Quiet small form factor ATX systems tend to have specially designed (and expensive) cooling systems (like Shuttle's ICE heat pipe) and specially designed cases/PSUs. Most of the other SFF ATX systems that have tried to copy Shuttle's success are too noisy or hot. From what I've seen, none of them are cheap.
I thought the hard part of designing a SFF PC (quiet cooling) was already taken care of in the picoBTX spec. Note that Shuttle's picoBTX system is their only XPC that doesn't use their ICE heat pipe. If picoBTX gets more accepted, we should see more inexpensive, tiny, quiet picoBTX systems from a number of case manufacturers. But where the heck are they? Even Intel doesn't offer a picoBTX motherboard yet.
See how the 3200+ running at "just" 2Ghz is outperforming even a 3.4Ghz P4 and sometimes even a 3.5 or 3.6Ghz P4.
We're talking about dual core chips and those are single core, single-threaded benchmarks (gaming). I think those graphs are only relevent if you're using single-threaded applications or single-tasking. Dual-core chips would see very little improvement in those graphs.
Since we're talking about dual-core chips and pricing, the more relevant Anandtech graphs start here: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ & 4200+ Dual Core Performance Preview (Page 3).
Their cheap single core chips will wipe the plate with the low-ball PD and will be cheaper as well...
Not in heavily multithreaded apps and multitasking scenarios, which are the only reasons we'd be buying dual-core chips. See how in heavily multithreaded apps (like Data Analysis, DivX Encoding, and 3dsmax 6) and multitasking scenarios (like Anandtech's custom multitasking benchmarks), a 3.2GHz Pentium D performs much better than an Athlon 64 FX-55.
Also look at how a 2.8Ghz P4 isn't even on the charts... use your brain and extrapolate from the P4's what the 2.8Ghz P4 would be posting and you can see that it is WAY slower than even a 2Ghz Athlon64.
Although the dual-core charts do not include the 2.8GHz Pentium D, use your brain and extrapolate... you can see that it is WAY faster than AMD's "cheap single core chips" in multitasking and multithreaded scenarios.
I agree with most of your points. AMD offers better peformance/price for single core chips and dual core chips over $500. However, you based your arguments on single core benchmarks.
As others have pointed out, not all motherboards with integrated graphics have an AGP or PCI Express x16 slot. So if future upgrades are important, choose wisely. However, if you're not a hardcore gamer, I'm guessing NVIDIA and ATI will continue making decent PCI (or PCI Express x1) versions of their low end, current-generation cards.
Today I can build a cheap PC with a 945G-based motherboard (GMA 950 graphics) and an $82 Celeron CPU. I can later upgrade that PC to a dual-core Pentium D and the latest PCI Express x16 graphics card.
I still hoping for IGP and cheaper CPUs for socket 939.
On the Mac, AltiVec was the first vector unit to be released, and was of a very high, proven, quality. Subsequent chips have retained compatibility with exactly the same vector ISA, meaning that everything written for a G4's vector unit will gain the same benefit on a G5[2].
Intel's SSE3 is a superset of SSE2 which is a superset of SSE which is a superset of MMX. Everything written for MMX will gain the same benefit on SSE, and everything written for SSE... we know the logic. I don't see the difficulty here.
AMD's 3dNow!, on the other hand, was decent (and came before SSE and Altivec) but not used much because of AMD's weak presense at the time (K6-2). AMD has since adopted Intel's SIMD instructions, so very few people target 3dNow!.
I'm not saying SSE3 is any better or worse than Altivec (or that MMX was not overhyped), but I don't understand why SSE/SSE2/SSE3 were "too late" or difficult to target your code for.
No, but I think there are very few of us. I think most of the people who want ECC RAM for their desktop PCs want it for their "workstations," not "mainstream desktops." Heck, even some "workstations" don't support ECC RAM.
I kit out all my new machines with at least 1GB RAM and I want long uptimes on all my Windows, Linux and FreeBSD machines. I really want ECC RAM, but it seems that only Intel's server chipsets support it.
Not only Intel's server chipsets. Intel's 955X chipset supports ECC RAM and it's a "performance desktop/workstation" chipset. Unfortunately, 955X motherboards seem to carry about a $100 price premium over their "mainstream" counterparts. The ASUS P5WD2 Premium supports ECC RAM and costs $230 at Chiefvalue (Newegg's sister site). You can even put a lowly Celeron D in it.
That's not the only reason Apple might be considering using Intel chips. An Intel chip might be a better and more modern solution for some Apple hardware. I think that "cheaper Mac mini" comment was just fun speculation by the submitter.
Currently all of Intel's stuff runs hotter, so Apple would have to work significantly harder at heat dissipation issues in all but their tower designs.
Not all of Intel's stuff. The Pentium M and Mobile 915 chipset were designed specifically for notebooks and run very cool (unlike the Pentium 4 architecture). Just this past January, Apple's VP of Worldwide Sales and Operations called a PowerBook G5 "the mother of all thermal challenges." A Pentium M PowerBook would not be a thermal challenge at all.
For desktops and servers, the G5 is great and I see no good reason to use Intel chips for those platforms. For 1" think PowerBooks, however, the G5 may never be a good solution because of thermal challenges. The G4 processor is so slow and outdated (but maybe "good enough" for now), that Intel's budget notebook processor, the Pentium M-based Celeron M, is better than the fastest G4.
And what, pray tell, do you expect them to do with little-endian issues, backwards compatibility, and all those little details?
That's a good point, and I have no idea. That's why I say the Pentium M might be a good chip for PowerBooks.
1&2) Netflix, Greencine. GC has a better anime selection for now, as well as more hard to find foreign titles. Netflix has much better availability on almost every title it actually stocks, and is edging up on the anime. But it's still not there with foreign titles, either. Best selection for most people, however.
Um, I'm not suggesting Slashdot readers watch porn. However, Greencine (unlike the others) actually stocks movies of the "Adult" genre. Maybe this should be mentioned when talking about "selection."
I apologize in advance for suggesting that some Slashdot readers watch porn.
Turn it into a vineyard/winery.
That might be an awful idea. I'll mod myself down.
I'm not an "IT person," but doesn't this KB article say it is possible to recover Windows 2000 by using a FireWire disk enclosure? From the article:
In other words, I think it depends on the hardware (FireWire controller) and BIOS (Firmware on Macs) more than the OS. I'd think any modern OS (like Windows 2000 or OS X) would support this if the FireWire controller and BIOS/Firware supported it. A built-in FireWire controller is more likely to support this than a PCI card.Again, I'm not an "IT person." Sorry if I'm not talking about the same thing.