It's not intended to benefit of the ribbon, but rather to illustrate that they've made changes to other parts of the Explorer UI so that the ribbon won't eat away what vertical space was already there (which was my only concern). Seemed obvious enough, maybe you didn't read the entire blog entry.
Just to add to the sibling here, Apple is no stranger to chip design. Back when they were dealing with the PowerPC (and probably before then too) they were very much into motherboard/chipset design within their VLSI research group. I wouldn't sell them short.
Was this article about you? I don't think he was addressing you personally; you can only speak for yourself.
I could understand chiming in with how you feel towards your step-children, but what the parent said is true biologically and something to consider. No reason to get defensive.
Considering you're talking only a $10-15 difference give or take, I'd certainly pay more for the faster card (4770) that also happens to save on idle and load power (something that matters to me). The width of the memory bus means little if its not the performance bottleneck, not to mention nearly made up for by higher frequency memories as is the case here (1.8 GHz versus 3.2 GHz effective for the 4830 and 4770 respectively). All the tests I've seen show the 4770 out ahead of the 4830 even at the highest resolutions and levels of AA (obviously the gap becomes smaller as the resolution + AA becomes more extreme).
You can login and/or reset your password by using your email (the one on the account, which should be easier for you to recall I'd hope) where it asks for username.
What's funny is that while their product is in alpha they're comparing their product's JavaScript performance (which is where they make their claim, not sure if the numbers are fudged) to IE7 and FireFox 3.0.1 rather than the IE8 beta or the FireFox builds with TraceMonkey. Seeing that FireFox's new engine is roughly 22% (see source below) faster than Google's V8 in this same test that would place the latest FireFox performance at 2.695 ms which is close to their numbers. So perhaps they're using TraceMonkey for their own JavaScript engine for their numbers. Either way, their comparison's a wash.
Source: http://www.firefoxfacts.com/2008/09/11/firefoxs-new-javascript-engine-faster-than-chromes-v8/
Disclamer: I understand performance might not scale linearly across whatever architectures both tests (Luna and the linked), but it's probably a good guesstimate.
Except those same drives don't exactly compare due to a poor implementation of the hardware or the write/cleaning algorithm in the JMicron controller many (all?) of those are using. The capacity and price are tempting, but the write latency especially during random accesses is beyond awful. Unless of course they were able to update the firmware on those chips to address the issue since this article was published:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=7
I should add/correct myself that the designer should not limit themselves to a particular number of threads. If the algorithm can only be made concurrent with two threads, that may be the case, but generally if the problem can utilize all 99 to get the problem done in a reasonably more efficient time, then it should utilize them.
That said, and this is somewhat off topic, I think it would be good (if it hasn't already been done) to allow the user to limit the number of cores the system uses or customize the power options so that they can choose when to bring certain cores out of sleep for the OS to utilize. I hate wasting power when all I want to do is browse the web when I'm not busy with more demanding tasks.
The problem is that software is ultimately limited by how much of the algorithm is sequential. You cannot parallelize (I'll make that word up if I have to) every portion of software, there is always some sequential portion of code that cannot be split up that will prevent that. Certain software is limited more than others.
It is up to the software developer to design their algorithm to exploit as much parallelism as possible be it by running routines that can be done concurrently into two threads to a point where they must communicate. The applications typical on a desktop environment have not always been designed with this in mind, and at times it can be a challenge.
Now, there are other classes of problems unlike those typically seen on the desktop. These problems are what's called embarrassingly parallel. A lot of scientific problems fall under this category and can reap huge rewards out of a cluster.
If the software is largely sequential (either by design or necessity), the process is unlikely to see any benefit from multiple cores and is at the mercy of the operating system's scheduler as far as I know.
I think this gives some idea, but I've only had one course in parallel computing and it's been a while. It's pretty interesting stuff, and hopefully I didn't butcher too much.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider a gamer "hardcore" if they are not primarily focused on the games. I really don't see the distinction between a gamer and a "hardcore" gamer except that the latter is declaring himself a fanboy because they're too good to play certain games and certain systems. I just want to be entertained, I hardly care how the game does that.
Shouldn't change a thing. As long as the disk is larger, any HVD player could accept DVD/CD as long as the hardware was there for the backwards compatibility. Can your CD/DVD player not play mini variations of the media?
Point is, the option is there size difference or not.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I can tell from a quick search, 802.11 does use CSMA/CA.
*It's not intended to show a benefit of the ribbon.
It's not intended to benefit of the ribbon, but rather to illustrate that they've made changes to other parts of the Explorer UI so that the ribbon won't eat away what vertical space was already there (which was my only concern). Seemed obvious enough, maybe you didn't read the entire blog entry.
Just to add to the sibling here, Apple is no stranger to chip design. Back when they were dealing with the PowerPC (and probably before then too) they were very much into motherboard/chipset design within their VLSI research group. I wouldn't sell them short.
There are plenty of unnatural ways to die.
Then don't read Slashdot out loud. Problem solved.
Was this article about you? I don't think he was addressing you personally; you can only speak for yourself. I could understand chiming in with how you feel towards your step-children, but what the parent said is true biologically and something to consider. No reason to get defensive.
Considering you're talking only a $10-15 difference give or take, I'd certainly pay more for the faster card (4770) that also happens to save on idle and load power (something that matters to me). The width of the memory bus means little if its not the performance bottleneck, not to mention nearly made up for by higher frequency memories as is the case here (1.8 GHz versus 3.2 GHz effective for the 4830 and 4770 respectively). All the tests I've seen show the 4770 out ahead of the 4830 even at the highest resolutions and levels of AA (obviously the gap becomes smaller as the resolution + AA becomes more extreme).
You can login and/or reset your password by using your email (the one on the account, which should be easier for you to recall I'd hope) where it asks for username.
What's funny is that while their product is in alpha they're comparing their product's JavaScript performance (which is where they make their claim, not sure if the numbers are fudged) to IE7 and FireFox 3.0.1 rather than the IE8 beta or the FireFox builds with TraceMonkey. Seeing that FireFox's new engine is roughly 22% (see source below) faster than Google's V8 in this same test that would place the latest FireFox performance at 2.695 ms which is close to their numbers. So perhaps they're using TraceMonkey for their own JavaScript engine for their numbers. Either way, their comparison's a wash. Source: http://www.firefoxfacts.com/2008/09/11/firefoxs-new-javascript-engine-faster-than-chromes-v8/ Disclamer: I understand performance might not scale linearly across whatever architectures both tests (Luna and the linked), but it's probably a good guesstimate.
Except those same drives don't exactly compare due to a poor implementation of the hardware or the write/cleaning algorithm in the JMicron controller many (all?) of those are using. The capacity and price are tempting, but the write latency especially during random accesses is beyond awful. Unless of course they were able to update the firmware on those chips to address the issue since this article was published: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=7
I should add/correct myself that the designer should not limit themselves to a particular number of threads. If the algorithm can only be made concurrent with two threads, that may be the case, but generally if the problem can utilize all 99 to get the problem done in a reasonably more efficient time, then it should utilize them.
That said, and this is somewhat off topic, I think it would be good (if it hasn't already been done) to allow the user to limit the number of cores the system uses or customize the power options so that they can choose when to bring certain cores out of sleep for the OS to utilize. I hate wasting power when all I want to do is browse the web when I'm not busy with more demanding tasks.
The problem is that software is ultimately limited by how much of the algorithm is sequential. You cannot parallelize (I'll make that word up if I have to) every portion of software, there is always some sequential portion of code that cannot be split up that will prevent that. Certain software is limited more than others. It is up to the software developer to design their algorithm to exploit as much parallelism as possible be it by running routines that can be done concurrently into two threads to a point where they must communicate. The applications typical on a desktop environment have not always been designed with this in mind, and at times it can be a challenge. Now, there are other classes of problems unlike those typically seen on the desktop. These problems are what's called embarrassingly parallel. A lot of scientific problems fall under this category and can reap huge rewards out of a cluster. If the software is largely sequential (either by design or necessity), the process is unlikely to see any benefit from multiple cores and is at the mercy of the operating system's scheduler as far as I know. I think this gives some idea, but I've only had one course in parallel computing and it's been a while. It's pretty interesting stuff, and hopefully I didn't butcher too much.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider a gamer "hardcore" if they are not primarily focused on the games. I really don't see the distinction between a gamer and a "hardcore" gamer except that the latter is declaring himself a fanboy because they're too good to play certain games and certain systems. I just want to be entertained, I hardly care how the game does that.
Shouldn't change a thing. As long as the disk is larger, any HVD player could accept DVD/CD as long as the hardware was there for the backwards compatibility. Can your CD/DVD player not play mini variations of the media? Point is, the option is there size difference or not.