Adaptors exist which can convert a 4-pin Molex connector to a SATA power connector. However, because the 4-pin Molex connectors do not provide 3.3 V power, these adapters provide only 5 V and 12 V power and leave the 3.3 V lines unconnected. This precludes the use of such adapters with drives that require 3.3 V power. Understanding this, drive manufacturers have largely left the 3.3 V power lines unused. However, without 3.3 V power, the SATA device may not be able to implement hotplugging as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
I haven't come across a single SATA device that won't work with a Molex->SATA power adapter. Do you have examples?
* "Kitty" (1995, #13 US Modern Rock) * "Lump" (1995, #26 US, #15 UK, #1 US Modern Rock, #7 US Mainstream Rock) * "Peaches" (1995, #29 US, #8 UK, #8 US Modern Rock, #24 US Mainstream Rock) * "Mach 5" (1996, #29 UK, #11 US Modern Rock, #24 US Mainstream Rock) * "Video Killed The Radio Star" (1998, #52 UK) * "Some Postman" (2004, #31 US Modern Rock)
"Reduced settings" for me meant 1024x768 (on a 1440x900 monitor), no AA/AF, and "medium" for just about everything. I only had HDR on for my first run, and I turned it off for smoother framerates on subsequent runs (like the Portal challenges, and the "Gnome" run on Episode 2). I have a 6600GT AGP, and by default the texture resolution was on Low since it only has 128MB. I had to turn that up though, because all of the signs were unreadable on Low.
So I can get the gameplay and story, without watching a slideshow.
Eventually I'll get the eye candy, but for now my choices are either to play the game and get the story, or wait (possibly quite a while) for my hardware to catch up with the game.
If I waited to play Half-Life 2 until I could play it at >30fps on max settings, then I still wouldn't have played it. I'm still using essentially the same computer I was using when the game came out in 2004, with a few upgrades.
I'm probably building a new machine this fall. When it's done, I'll re-play through Valve's single-player catalog, plus I'll continue playing their multi-player games. Meanwhile, I don't have to worry about seeing spoilers for Portal or the Half-Life series.
Now having said that, if it's really true that sales increase by 3000% when the cost is halved, this seems a convincing argument that the cost is too high.
There are plenty of people who bought it at $50. The thing with the sale is that people who were either on the fence about buying the game, or couldn't afford to spend that much, saw the half-off sale, and said "Hell yeah!".
It was also a weekend-only sale -- it's unlikely the sales would've increased anywhere near that much had it been a permanent price drop. It's the Black Friday effect -- you may not need a new laptop, but if you see one for $250, you'll buy it anyway, cause you know you're unlikely to get a deal like that for some time.
Very true; a few years ago I was playing around with Valve's "Hammer" map editor, which is essentially a CAD program. Even though I had a meager FX5200, I could still be productive, just not as productive as someone with a better card.
That's the thing with CAD users though -- if you're using CAD for more than a few hours per week, then the cost of a good graphics card pays for itself quickly in time that you don't have to sit there, waiting for the next frame to render.
I don't have a citation for CAD users vs. FireGL and Quadro (I must have said Quattro earlier because of Audi) buyers. However, I'd bet that very few people who use CAD as part of their daily job are running on integrated graphics from any company.
I have no idea how your Celeron compares to your Atom, I'm just saying that it's possible that the Atom was designed for low-power in-order execution. The Celeron is low-power too, but it's an out-of-order core. If we look at current processors, a 1.6GHz Celeron will beat a 1.6GHz Atom in many benchmarks because of the in-order/out-of-order differences, but the Atom would use less power. I don't know how the generational differences would affect that.
As for the graphics cards, I'm saying there is a software difference. If you run a Half-Life 2 on a GF4 (let me clarify and say I'm talking about the GF4 MX), then it will run in DX7 mode, with none of the DX8 features. If you run an FX series card, then it will run in DX8.1 mode by default, and the 6-series will run in DX9 mode. You didn't specify what model Radeon your laptop runs, but look at the difference in work your card has to compute between DX7 mode and DX8 mode: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=9
Moving from the GF4MX to the FX5200, my average framerate dropped a bit, but the image quality was so much better. You can change between the DirectX modes by hand, but unless you do that, you may get reduced performance, despite an increase in image quality.
Disclaimer: I work for Intel, but I'm not trying to make a marketing pitch.
If you're using an i7 in a workstation context rather than a gaming context, then those PCIe slots can be useful for RAID cards or network cards; they're not just useful for graphics cards.
I should also point out that the new Xeon processors based on the Nehalem architecture are currently slated to come out in March, if you want a pure server board, rather than a gaming/workstation platform.
So, you're comparing an old card that doesn't support newer features that cause slowdowns, against a newer card that does support those features? If you have a Source game, try running both on DirectX 7 mode, instead of having one in DX7 and one in DX9. My GeForce 4 was faster in DX7 than my FX5200 was in DX9, but that doesn't make the GF4 a better card.
Also, comparing a Celeron to an Atom isn't really a fair test, since they're two different market segments.
Pull a wire. We fussed with WiFi for years, and it is often problematic. If you are in a house or office, pull the wire. It's no that hard (for the simple cases he is listing, like two rooms above one another). Get the land lord's permission if you don't own the place. It's not worth all the fussing you may end up having to do with WiFi (thanks to neighbor access points, cheap $30 APs, etc).
I'd love to wire up my apartment, but I really don't see how it would even be feasible. If you can give me a good solution, I'd love to hear it:
Basically, I want cable running from the TV, where I have the cable modem set up, to both desks. I live on the second floor of three, so I don't think I can go through the floor or ceiling.
And mom probably doesn't work in a coal mine. Most parents I know are able to say to their supervisor "I have to go pick up my kid early" once in a while.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA
Adaptors exist which can convert a 4-pin Molex connector to a SATA power connector. However, because the 4-pin Molex connectors do not provide 3.3 V power, these adapters provide only 5 V and 12 V power and leave the 3.3 V lines unconnected. This precludes the use of such adapters with drives that require 3.3 V power. Understanding this, drive manufacturers have largely left the 3.3 V power lines unused. However, without 3.3 V power, the SATA device may not be able to implement hotplugging as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
I haven't come across a single SATA device that won't work with a Molex->SATA power adapter. Do you have examples?
Well, if you include a few more pins, then you should be able to merely extend the current design to include the data cables...
Nevermind, I read the site. :)
How is it anonymous without friend-to-friend?
blah blah
Too long, didn't read.
This is /., where some people don't even read the summary, and you expect us to read your comment?
If you're using Firefox, then get Adblock.
Look carefully --
* "Kitty" (1995, #13 US Modern Rock)
* "Lump" (1995, #26 US, #15 UK, #1 US Modern Rock, #7 US Mainstream Rock)
* "Peaches" (1995, #29 US, #8 UK, #8 US Modern Rock, #24 US Mainstream Rock)
* "Mach 5" (1996, #29 UK, #11 US Modern Rock, #24 US Mainstream Rock)
* "Video Killed The Radio Star" (1998, #52 UK)
* "Some Postman" (2004, #31 US Modern Rock)
Remember to compare like units!
I think he was going for "+1 Funny", not "-1 Offtopic".
Personally, I know them better for their song "Lump" (which Weird Al parodied as "Gump") better than I know them for "Peaches".
"Reduced settings" for me meant 1024x768 (on a 1440x900 monitor), no AA/AF, and "medium" for just about everything. I only had HDR on for my first run, and I turned it off for smoother framerates on subsequent runs (like the Portal challenges, and the "Gnome" run on Episode 2). I have a 6600GT AGP, and by default the texture resolution was on Low since it only has 128MB. I had to turn that up though, because all of the signs were unreadable on Low.
So I can get the gameplay and story, without watching a slideshow.
Eventually I'll get the eye candy, but for now my choices are either to play the game and get the story, or wait (possibly quite a while) for my hardware to catch up with the game.
If I waited to play Half-Life 2 until I could play it at >30fps on max settings, then I still wouldn't have played it. I'm still using essentially the same computer I was using when the game came out in 2004, with a few upgrades.
I'm probably building a new machine this fall. When it's done, I'll re-play through Valve's single-player catalog, plus I'll continue playing their multi-player games. Meanwhile, I don't have to worry about seeing spoilers for Portal or the Half-Life series.
Now having said that, if it's really true that sales increase by 3000% when the cost is halved, this seems a convincing argument that the cost is too high.
There are plenty of people who bought it at $50. The thing with the sale is that people who were either on the fence about buying the game, or couldn't afford to spend that much, saw the half-off sale, and said "Hell yeah!".
It was also a weekend-only sale -- it's unlikely the sales would've increased anywhere near that much had it been a permanent price drop. It's the Black Friday effect -- you may not need a new laptop, but if you see one for $250, you'll buy it anyway, cause you know you're unlikely to get a deal like that for some time.
One big thing is that many people are unwilling to play games unless it's at max settings.
I played The Orange Box at launch, on reduced resolution and graphics settings. I would've preferred to play at max settings, but I dealt with it.
Very true; a few years ago I was playing around with Valve's "Hammer" map editor, which is essentially a CAD program. Even though I had a meager FX5200, I could still be productive, just not as productive as someone with a better card.
That's the thing with CAD users though -- if you're using CAD for more than a few hours per week, then the cost of a good graphics card pays for itself quickly in time that you don't have to sit there, waiting for the next frame to render.
I don't have a citation for CAD users vs. FireGL and Quadro (I must have said Quattro earlier because of Audi) buyers. However, I'd bet that very few people who use CAD as part of their daily job are running on integrated graphics from any company.
I forgot to specify in my original post: it was a GF4-MX440, which was just a GF2 with an upgraded memory controller.
All I wanted was a card that would have a draw distance of more than 10 feet in Half-Life 2, and the FX5200 did the job.
I have no idea how your Celeron compares to your Atom, I'm just saying that it's possible that the Atom was designed for low-power in-order execution. The Celeron is low-power too, but it's an out-of-order core. If we look at current processors, a 1.6GHz Celeron will beat a 1.6GHz Atom in many benchmarks because of the in-order/out-of-order differences, but the Atom would use less power. I don't know how the generational differences would affect that.
As for the graphics cards, I'm saying there is a software difference. If you run a Half-Life 2 on a GF4 (let me clarify and say I'm talking about the GF4 MX), then it will run in DX7 mode, with none of the DX8 features. If you run an FX series card, then it will run in DX8.1 mode by default, and the 6-series will run in DX9 mode. You didn't specify what model Radeon your laptop runs, but look at the difference in work your card has to compute between DX7 mode and DX8 mode:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=9
Moving from the GF4MX to the FX5200, my average framerate dropped a bit, but the image quality was so much better. You can change between the DirectX modes by hand, but unless you do that, you may get reduced performance, despite an increase in image quality.
Disclaimer: I work for Intel, but I'm not trying to make a marketing pitch.
If you're using an i7 in a workstation context rather than a gaming context, then those PCIe slots can be useful for RAID cards or network cards; they're not just useful for graphics cards.
I should also point out that the new Xeon processors based on the Nehalem architecture are currently slated to come out in March, if you want a pure server board, rather than a gaming/workstation platform.
Disclaimer: I work for Intel.
So, you're comparing an old card that doesn't support newer features that cause slowdowns, against a newer card that does support those features? If you have a Source game, try running both on DirectX 7 mode, instead of having one in DX7 and one in DX9. My GeForce 4 was faster in DX7 than my FX5200 was in DX9, but that doesn't make the GF4 a better card.
Also, comparing a Celeron to an Atom isn't really a fair test, since they're two different market segments.
Most CAD users aren't just going to be buying a discrete card, they'll be buying a Quattro or FireGL card for $500+, possibly $1000+.
http://members.airsoftcanada.com/digital_assasin/Forum%20Stuff/Misc/clip_mag_lesson.jpg
I doubt you use a C96 as your home defense pistol, so I think you mean "magazine". ;)
Now I've never been skydiving, but wouldn't you still feel weightless after reaching terminal velocity?
Right now you can think freely, but they're working on that.
Pull a wire. We fussed with WiFi for years, and it is often problematic. If you are in a house or office, pull the wire. It's no that hard (for the simple cases he is listing, like two rooms above one another). Get the land lord's permission if you don't own the place. It's not worth all the fussing you may end up having to do with WiFi (thanks to neighbor access points, cheap $30 APs, etc).
I'd love to wire up my apartment, but I really don't see how it would even be feasible. If you can give me a good solution, I'd love to hear it:
My apartment
Basically, I want cable running from the TV, where I have the cable modem set up, to both desks. I live on the second floor of three, so I don't think I can go through the floor or ceiling.
Is there a good solution?
And mom probably doesn't work in a coal mine. Most parents I know are able to say to their supervisor "I have to go pick up my kid early" once in a while.
Or maybe just call the parents and make them take her home?