HDTV displays are big, but the resolution is still only 1920x1080. The resolution you get from 3 monitors is much higher, and you get a very different aspect ration... so you can show a lot more content on the sides. You increase your field of vision in the game vs. just having a big display.
People have been saying that forever now. I think only the first 2 generations of 3D cards were greeted by universal enthusiasm, while everything else since had a number of "who needs that power to run game X" crowd. The truth is, yes, you can run a lot of games with old cards, but you can run them better with newer cards. So, it's just a matter of preference when it comes to the usual gaming.
AMD/ATI is at least doing something fun with all this new power. Since you can run the latest games in 5400x2000 resolutions with high frame rate, why not hook up three monitors to one Radeon 58xx card and play it like this? That wasn't something you could do with an older card.
Similarly, using some of the new video converter apps that make use of a GPU can cut down transcoding from many hours to one hour or less... you can convert your blu-ray movie to a portable video format much easier and quicker. Again, something you couldn't do with an old card, and something that was only somewhat useful in previous generation.
In summary, I think the *need* for more power is less pressing than it used to, but there's still more and more you can do with new cards.
How in the hell could you ever do a controlled experiment like this on people if you dont control their exposure to the infection causing material? The only way you can determind improvements of real thing over placebo is if you intentionally expose the test subjects to the virus...which would be a death sentence.
Everybody was already exposed to the virus. For those that got the vaccine, there was a 30% less chance of it turning into AIDS.
The vaccine successfully prevented HIV turning into AIDS in some number of people, basically. It didn't stop people from getting HIV.
I'm not normally a stickler for these, but AIDS is a syndrome, HIV is the virus that causes it. The vaccine can prevent you from acquiring HIV and thence from developing AIDS. It's not a cure, it's a preventative measure.
That's just straight up wrong. If you bothered to read TFA (I know, I know, it's Slashdot), you'd see that the vaccine doesn't have any impact on the amount of HIV in one's blood, and does not prevent one from getting HIV into one's blood. What it does do, though, is reduce the chance of that HIV turning into AIDS.
You find it insulting that a total stranger doesn't take your word for how good you are? You must get insulted very often.
I mean, what's there to be insulted about? They asked you to do a beginner's test? Well, if it's clearly below your level, then that's a good thing for you -- now you know that you're not the one they are looking for.
Now, if I came strongly recommended by somebody, and they give me a test, maybe the guy who recommended me should be insulted. Me? Never.
An hour of HD video from a video camera (which are fast becoming common place, and will probably become standard in next 2-3 years) takes about 8GB of data. At that rate, taking some video "occasionally" means that you run out of your 100GB pretty fast, even without any editing.
I have a couple of questions... First, if your task is easily parallelized, then why do you need the full data stored on every card? Can't each GPU handle a piece of the full computation using a piece of the lattice?
Second, a 16x PCIe gen 2 slot is not much slower than the top-speed infiniband connection (8 vs 12GB/s) that you're using to interconnect your CPUs, so I can't see why PCIe would be such a bottleneck. Are you sure that that's the problem? Are you using a chipset that supports full 16x GPU slots?
Finally, is each calculation in this process so simple that an 8GB/s stream of data can't fully saturate a GPU? Isn't there more computation that can be done per one "chunk" of data?
If you read some of their FAQ, you'd see that they are not scraping the data from the FAA web site, but are instead modeling the air traffic control algorithms for allocating plane take-off and landing slots at the airports. They claim that the vast majority of the delays can be predicted that way (whether that's right or not is another questions).
Re:Media player classic + codec packs VLC
on
VLC 1.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Where am I, a novice, supposed to find a "community made codec pack"?
And having downloaded one, which one's the best? I swear, it's like wanting to buy a shirt, and then having to spend time researching stitch counts and whether the garment was dyed after assembly or the fabric was dyed before stitching.
I'm sure you know that if you don't do any research, you're definitely *not* getting the best one. So, either you care to get the best one or you don't... if you do, then you certainly don't want VLC. If you don't care, then you can't use that as an argument against downloading a codec pack and being able to use any player.
It's like people who go 45 MPH in the left lane on a 55 MPH road. Yeah, that's definitely what the laws say you can do, but most people don't, and the presence of a vehicle going a different speed from the flow of traffic creates danger and stress that shouldn't be there. Ignoring custom in favor of only the rules in print is antisocial behavior.
Actually, almost every state/province has laws that prohibit going slow enough to inhibit normal flow of traffic. It's probably up to the traffic cop's discretion what that speed is, but it's illegal nonetheless.
I question if producing 8 different chip sets is as cost effective is perhaps producing three? The more quantity you can produce of a single chip, the cheaper manufacturing becomes, right?
We're still talking about two (maybe three) different ASICs, all packaged/fused into different products. Having multiple packages still costs some money, but being able to hit the sweet spot of every market segment is worth it.
As an online and real life poker player I can safely say that the cards that are dealt in most online poker sites are certainly not "random".
If you don't want to research this yourself, there are certainly many others online that have done it. The cards are, in fact, random. It is indeed poker as we know it.
You simply play a lot more hands online, and therefore see a lot more happen. The 4-1 odds might seem huge when you play 10-15 hands per hour in real life, but when you're playing 200/hr in a 4-table session, you're going to see that 1 out 5 hit every few minutes.
On the other hand, online poker is pure mathematics. It's easy to play poker perfectly: given the contents of your hand and the cards already played, an algorithm can make the statistically most likely decision every time. It's boring.
That's not true at all, obviously. Just because your opponents are online, it doesn't mean they are not human. They will behave differently in different situations. What is "correct" against one player is incorrect against other.
The only thing you lose online are the audio-visual input from the person itself. You still get to see the betting pattern, the betting amounts, the hands commonly played, the speed of reacting, etc. It's tougher to win by purely "reading" opponents, and you have to play a more solid game to win, but you still need to read the situation right.
It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.
(Before somebody else says it, yeah, they could try to generate "action" hands to increase the rake. They could make weaker hands win more often to keep the fish around. This is a much harder thing to do undetectably than have the house win 10% more often in blackjack... with all the software available to keep track of and analyze all hands played, it's easy to spot any irregularities in randomness. I doubt that it's worth the effort to try to develop an undetectable skew in probabilities... Not to mention that if you screw up and get detected, your gold mine will be deserted the next day).
You probably installed XP, which is damn old, and can't be expected to have all the latest drivers. I just installed Windows 7 RC, and absolutely everything on the computer worked flawlessly right after the install -- graphics, network, sound, printer, etc.
They've never needed to get the clock speed up that high before, remember Ghz != Performance
Err... It's not that black and white, you can't just say that GHz != performance. If you take a card and raise its clock, you'll usually get more performance. If you raise memory speed you'll usually get more performance. The only time you won't is when the one is bottlenecking the other.
All we're learned from CPU wars is that within two different architectures, the faster one isn't necessarily the one with more GHz. But, between two identical designs, more GHz means more performance.
Any word on how this compares to the current recieved wisdom of "when you have a job, do it as fast as possible, then go to sleep"?
That's not really the best way to save power for many situations. We already know that the best way to save power is by figuring out the lowest possible speed you can run at and still satisfy the user -- for bursty jobs, or realtime ones, that's easy... you adjust the speed until you get to the point where you're just fast enough to never idle. This is great for graphics chips, video decoding, etc. These guys are trying to figure out the lowest speed you can run your CPU at during other everyday tasks -- that's tricky to do by just monitoring CPU usage.
If you wonder why low constant speed is better than high speed + idling... It's because once you lower the clock speed, you can lower the voltage as well... and dynamic power being fCV^2, voltage reductions give you the biggest pay-off.
The problem is that it took 9 years from the complaint for the fine to be leveled. If they do this for 9 more years, AMD will be gone, and they can afford to pay any fine and still win big. Meanwhile, if they followed the law all along, AMD probably would've taken much bigger market share during the few years when they had superior products, and Intel would've lost a lot more than this fine (and the next).
The fine shouldn't bankrupt you, but it should make you think twice about doing the same thing again. I don't think this does it -- not even close.
Volume discounting means "buy more and we give you a discount". What they were doing was "don't buy from others and we give you a discount.. you don't even have to buy more from us". There's a very clear difference between that and Sam's Club's discounts.
It's still just a slap on the wrist. They've profited an order of magnitude more from the illegal tactics they used, and this just says "It's ok to break the law, as long as you give us a cut of the profits".
They should at least give a part of the fine to AMD to help them fight Intel -- that would hurt Intel a lot more than paying a fine to EU, and make them think twice before doing this again.
Slashdot Mirror
HDTV displays are big, but the resolution is still only 1920x1080. The resolution you get from 3 monitors is much higher, and you get a very different aspect ration... so you can show a lot more content on the sides. You increase your field of vision in the game vs. just having a big display.
People have been saying that forever now. I think only the first 2 generations of 3D cards were greeted by universal enthusiasm, while everything else since had a number of "who needs that power to run game X" crowd. The truth is, yes, you can run a lot of games with old cards, but you can run them better with newer cards. So, it's just a matter of preference when it comes to the usual gaming.
AMD/ATI is at least doing something fun with all this new power. Since you can run the latest games in 5400x2000 resolutions with high frame rate, why not hook up three monitors to one Radeon 58xx card and play it like this? That wasn't something you could do with an older card.
Similarly, using some of the new video converter apps that make use of a GPU can cut down transcoding from many hours to one hour or less... you can convert your blu-ray movie to a portable video format much easier and quicker. Again, something you couldn't do with an old card, and something that was only somewhat useful in previous generation.
In summary, I think the *need* for more power is less pressing than it used to, but there's still more and more you can do with new cards.
Everybody was already exposed to the virus. For those that got the vaccine, there was a 30% less chance of it turning into AIDS.
The vaccine successfully prevented HIV turning into AIDS in some number of people, basically. It didn't stop people from getting HIV.
That's just straight up wrong. If you bothered to read TFA (I know, I know, it's Slashdot), you'd see that the vaccine doesn't have any impact on the amount of HIV in one's blood, and does not prevent one from getting HIV into one's blood. What it does do, though, is reduce the chance of that HIV turning into AIDS.
For bonus points, make it all run on non-jailbroken iPhone ;).
You find it insulting that a total stranger doesn't take your word for how good you are? You must get insulted very often.
I mean, what's there to be insulted about? They asked you to do a beginner's test? Well, if it's clearly below your level, then that's a good thing for you -- now you know that you're not the one they are looking for.
Now, if I came strongly recommended by somebody, and they give me a test, maybe the guy who recommended me should be insulted. Me? Never.
An hour of HD video from a video camera (which are fast becoming common place, and will probably become standard in next 2-3 years) takes about 8GB of data. At that rate, taking some video "occasionally" means that you run out of your 100GB pretty fast, even without any editing.
I have a couple of questions... First, if your task is easily parallelized, then why do you need the full data stored on every card? Can't each GPU handle a piece of the full computation using a piece of the lattice?
Second, a 16x PCIe gen 2 slot is not much slower than the top-speed infiniband connection (8 vs 12GB/s) that you're using to interconnect your CPUs, so I can't see why PCIe would be such a bottleneck. Are you sure that that's the problem? Are you using a chipset that supports full 16x GPU slots?
Finally, is each calculation in this process so simple that an 8GB/s stream of data can't fully saturate a GPU? Isn't there more computation that can be done per one "chunk" of data?
If you read some of their FAQ, you'd see that they are not scraping the data from the FAA web site, but are instead modeling the air traffic control algorithms for allocating plane take-off and landing slots at the airports. They claim that the vast majority of the delays can be predicted that way (whether that's right or not is another questions).
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=community+made+codec+pack
I'm sure you know that if you don't do any research, you're definitely *not* getting the best one. So, either you care to get the best one or you don't... if you do, then you certainly don't want VLC. If you don't care, then you can't use that as an argument against downloading a codec pack and being able to use any player.
Actually, almost every state/province has laws that prohibit going slow enough to inhibit normal flow of traffic. It's probably up to the traffic cop's discretion what that speed is, but it's illegal nonetheless.
720 lines is no good without the appropriate width, too... and 1280 is quite a few percent more than 800.
We're still talking about two (maybe three) different ASICs, all packaged/fused into different products. Having multiple packages still costs some money, but being able to hit the sweet spot of every market segment is worth it.
As an online and real life poker player I can safely say that the cards that are dealt in most online poker sites are certainly not "random".
If you don't want to research this yourself, there are certainly many others online that have done it. The cards are, in fact, random. It is indeed poker as we know it.
You simply play a lot more hands online, and therefore see a lot more happen. The 4-1 odds might seem huge when you play 10-15 hands per hour in real life, but when you're playing 200/hr in a 4-table session, you're going to see that 1 out 5 hit every few minutes.
On the other hand, online poker is pure mathematics. It's easy to play poker perfectly: given the contents of your hand and the cards already played, an algorithm can make the statistically most likely decision every time. It's boring.
That's not true at all, obviously. Just because your opponents are online, it doesn't mean they are not human. They will behave differently in different situations. What is "correct" against one player is incorrect against other.
The only thing you lose online are the audio-visual input from the person itself. You still get to see the betting pattern, the betting amounts, the hands commonly played, the speed of reacting, etc. It's tougher to win by purely "reading" opponents, and you have to play a more solid game to win, but you still need to read the situation right.
It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.
(Before somebody else says it, yeah, they could try to generate "action" hands to increase the rake. They could make weaker hands win more often to keep the fish around. This is a much harder thing to do undetectably than have the house win 10% more often in blackjack... with all the software available to keep track of and analyze all hands played, it's easy to spot any irregularities in randomness. I doubt that it's worth the effort to try to develop an undetectable skew in probabilities... Not to mention that if you screw up and get detected, your gold mine will be deserted the next day).
This is a (very expensive) server CPU... I don't think you're going to spend money on this to run hackintosh either way.
Yup, same problem with Firefox here. I had to fire up IE to read Slashdot... awful, just awful.
You probably installed XP, which is damn old, and can't be expected to have all the latest drivers. I just installed Windows 7 RC, and absolutely everything on the computer worked flawlessly right after the install -- graphics, network, sound, printer, etc.
Err... It's not that black and white, you can't just say that GHz != performance. If you take a card and raise its clock, you'll usually get more performance. If you raise memory speed you'll usually get more performance. The only time you won't is when the one is bottlenecking the other.
All we're learned from CPU wars is that within two different architectures, the faster one isn't necessarily the one with more GHz. But, between two identical designs, more GHz means more performance.
That's not really the best way to save power for many situations. We already know that the best way to save power is by figuring out the lowest possible speed you can run at and still satisfy the user -- for bursty jobs, or realtime ones, that's easy... you adjust the speed until you get to the point where you're just fast enough to never idle. This is great for graphics chips, video decoding, etc. These guys are trying to figure out the lowest speed you can run your CPU at during other everyday tasks -- that's tricky to do by just monitoring CPU usage.
If you wonder why low constant speed is better than high speed + idling... It's because once you lower the clock speed, you can lower the voltage as well... and dynamic power being fCV^2, voltage reductions give you the biggest pay-off.
The problem is that it took 9 years from the complaint for the fine to be leveled. If they do this for 9 more years, AMD will be gone, and they can afford to pay any fine and still win big. Meanwhile, if they followed the law all along, AMD probably would've taken much bigger market share during the few years when they had superior products, and Intel would've lost a lot more than this fine (and the next).
The fine shouldn't bankrupt you, but it should make you think twice about doing the same thing again. I don't think this does it -- not even close.
Volume discounting means "buy more and we give you a discount". What they were doing was "don't buy from others and we give you a discount.. you don't even have to buy more from us". There's a very clear difference between that and Sam's Club's discounts.
It's still just a slap on the wrist. They've profited an order of magnitude more from the illegal tactics they used, and this just says "It's ok to break the law, as long as you give us a cut of the profits".
They should at least give a part of the fine to AMD to help them fight Intel -- that would hurt Intel a lot more than paying a fine to EU, and make them think twice before doing this again.
Bah, I'd love to, but my ISP is throttling torrents. I'm lucky if I can get 5KB/s upload and 30KB/s download :(.