Running higher clockspeeds and larger L2 cache doesnt make a processor "better technology"
The P4 was created as a marketing gimmick in the first place. It took it several years before it finally moved ahead of AMD K7.
This just shows that Intel either isnt paying attention or doesnt care. AMD has a better line of processors in speed and affordability(especially in the server-box market) and thats just the bottom line. I don't think quality is a problem or even a question here; because both chipmakers put out great quality chips IMO.
Civ 4 ran JUST fine for me and most of the people out there. I've got a A64 3200 and a 9800XT that I got about 1.5 years ago and it runs perfect on it. Not exactly modern hardware IMO either.
You'd better pay attention more to FEAR or Quake4; both of which IMO are good games but required brand new systems nearly to run full settings.
I could run Doom3 will AF and AA at setting down from full and get a beautiful framerate. But FEAR and Quake4 bogged down like hell.
I've been battling the same crap on various forums. MANY just don't understand this fact at all. Its a common delusion that permeates everything about ID, Creationism and the ultra-right-wing religious groups.
Mom always said there's people way out in the ditch on both sides of the fence while many others are just havin a good time cuttin the grass:)
Sorry but there arent many larger buildings; I think you're assuming buildings, such as the Pentagon with quick evacuations are an apples to apples measuring stick vs something like the World Trade Center.
Well, its obvious you didnt really think it through much; or that you simply ignored the fact that its MUCH harder to evacuate a building with many floors vs a building with fewer but larger floors. It creates a HUGE bottleneck; especially when a large plane crashes halfway up the tower, blocking many floors from getting out via normal means.
The fire department sent in more people because they were trying to evacuate EVERYONE. Not everyone has such a Machiavellian view on running such things as you. Some people are also willing to die to save people. What you just said, belittles the sacrifices those MEN made to save lives. If you were standing before me and made that statement, I'd slap you so hard, your eyeballs would pop out.
Do you work at Home Depot? Such serious toolage, I'd imagine a toolbox and toolshed wouldnt be enough.
Signing orders that violated the US Constitution? How's that? Last I checked they were warranted by the Patriot Act. Since you're not really grown up yet, prolly 16 years old, with acne, weigh about 110lbs at 6' tall, and still live with your parents; you wouldnt understand. Too idealistic for the modern world. You complain about stupid problems that people from countries like China, Cuba, North Korea and others, don't even have the right to speak about.
Yes. My Lexus SC300. Not from the factory turbocharged; but me installing a turbokit myself and still running everything else stock.
N/A it gets around 18mpg combined city and highway driving. I live out in the boonies;) After tuning and the kit installed; I dynoed 412whp at 10psi of boost. I got between 17-18mpg combined city WHEN I kept my foot out of it. If I constantly floored it all the time, which was EXTEMELY hard not to do in a car that instantly gains 230 horsepower to the wheels, I'd get about 14-15.
While the data you show is true; its still apples to oranges; in MOST Manufacturer cars that offer turbo and non-turbo options, they lower the compression ratio a significant amount to increase the safety margin. They've got to watch out for Joe Schmoe that doesnt change his oil often, and Joe Schmoe who keeps driving the car with a check engine light on. My car stock is 10:1. Its brother, the Supra, in Twinturbo form has a 8.5:1 ratio.... and it gets worse gas mileage, as you stated. Another big reason being its sequential turbos spool quite quickly in the powerband, and its harder to "stay out of it". But keeping higher compression ratio like 10:1 or 9.5:1 is very viable provided you keep the boost lower. It has much more response and gets better gas mileage than an equivalent 8:1 or 8.5:1 car. Look at the previous year Mazda Miata vs the MAZDASPEED Miata. The normal Miata making 23-28mpg with 10:1 compression vs the turbo Miata making 20-26mpg. averaged out thats 25.5 combined vs 23 combined. To me, thats almost identical. Especially in a world with inaccurate EPA numbers.
I like FDs as well:) I've always wanted one. Only trouble is the reliability of the motor and thats the only reason I didnt get one. I do like how people are dropping LS1s into them now (and even a couple people trying to drop in the LS7 from the new Z06). I'm looking at getting an NSX next and turbocharging that. I want a car that has the entire package and is still reliable and looks good.:)
If you want to make the same amount of power (or something close) with a supercharger, you'd have to run an aftercooler. The argument you make is true VS the older Garret turbos. But vs the newer GT turbos from garret and PTE, its not true. GT turbos are A LOT more efficient than their old counterparts used to be. If you have a chance, check out the maps for them vs similarly sized older models. Like the newer T67 (not the Mitsu T67) made by PTE. 67mm compressor and GT cartridge. vs like say, an older T66 based on the T-series cartridge.
Centrifugal units are the worst. They dont make power until later in the rpm band. Turbos make FAR MORE midrange and top-end.... I'm going by the numbers here. There's a reason the supercharged Cobra boys are switching to TT setups instead of upgrading the stock blower. More power, more powerband, more reliability, better sound (IMO - the ported shroud turbos sound like a fricken jet), drives them to make the switch.
Don't forget Biodiesel will work in any diesel engine. Its not a fossil fuel. You can refine it in your backyard with used cooking grease from a restaurant.
Oh and BMW might have a good idea here. I trust they'll put it in a butt-ugly car using I-drive, and then arrogantly come to the press and tell people "well you'll just have to get used to it, because we arent going to make it look nice" a la Chris Bangle ("Bungle")
Oh and then the car itself will run fine, until the window motors stop working; and then the radio stops working; then the seats stop working; and then the car won't crank anymore.
Bottom line? BMW needs to learn to make reliable cars instead of spending R&D on coming up with more stuff to break.
The supercharger is NOWHERE NEAR as efficient as a turbocharger. Depending on what kind of blower being used, it can be even worse. They totally kill the gas mileage too. Even under light load the engine is still having to turn the supercharger.
Superchargers have no advantages that can't be done by a properly sized turbocharger (powerbands come to mind); and the turbocharger has a whole ton of advantages a supercharger could only dream about. Only downsides are that its a little more complicated to install (very easy if you know what you're doing) and superchargers have smaller packaging (which tosses them in with the argument for FWD cars!).
Sorry but that's not true. Under light loads, turbocharged engines get almost identical gas mileage. The only restriction in most turbocharged cars is REALLY the turbine blades... after that its pretty much free-flow (except for a cat or two of course).
Today's more common GT turbos are VERY efficient compared to the older turbos that cars from the 90s would run.
Saab needs to spend its R&D dollars on building more reliable cars; not re-engineering some technology that allows them only a few small benefits.
Well the strength isnt going to increase without some activity, but one would presume that an average individual would at least have been working out in the gym for several years before even contemplating it.
Ligaments grow in response to strength and size gains. If your average, weak, slashdotter geek; who weighs 120lbs, has 9 inch biceps and cant bench or squat 95lbs used the stuff; yeah they would overload their system pretty quickly and lead to some pretty bad injuries.
Rotator Cuff injuries come to mind. Many real gym-buffs have stretch marks from their youth when they began working out; especially under the Deltoids. Usually occurs right above the armpit; where the pectoralis major attaches to the upper arm bone. The shoulder-area (especially front delt and pecs) are usually one of the quickest to grow when first starting out; and I'd bet the muscle would grow large (relatively) quite quickly.
Of course, to counter these arguments... there are several bodybuilders who have documented (some presumed) genetic mutations to where they have a much lower amount of Myostatin in their system than the average mesomorph somatype. Frank Zane comes to mind... the guy could grow just by looking at weight equipment.
I agree with your assessment though. Most average Americans would use it, and not workout, and not eat right and they'd gain a bunch of extra muscle mass; for which they'd have to eat more for, and would be overloaded to instantly have to carry it all around.
You mean the LACK of scientific method that goes into explaining creationism. Its quite obvious you've NEVER studied any kind of natural science.
How do I know? Because if you had, you would realize the inrefutable evidence that evolution exists, and has exists for billions of years. Its why Homo Sapiens Sapiens began to appear 3 million years ago; and its why we're the only hominids left. (Unless you believe the occaisional bigfoot argument - and you being a Creationist, I wouldnt put it past you).
What makes you think there's all this evidence out there thats totally bunk? There is no scientific method put into Creationism; that is one of its main faults. Its one of the main reasons REAL scientists are so very much AGAINST it. They are totally open to new theories, but REAL theories that have evidence and real analytical research done for them; not some whimsical, ARROGANT view of some Bible-thumper that thinks humanity is the pinnacle of all things on the earth or some BS like that.
But you won't do any research. You'll continue to say dinosaurs aren't over 65 million years old, and that all of these species that used to exist (and have been PROVEN TO EXIST) over billions of years either never really were around or that their fossil-dating method is 'flawed'. I've researched into creationism, I've done my homework. All the main points in the 'religo-science' are completely flat out wrong; and based upon presumptions that other data is flawed.
We have another word for people who think they see a 'truth' or a 'trend' and will blindly believe it no matter the surmounting evidence proving it wrong. My great-grandmother (RIP) being a good candidate, she wouldnt believe the Earth was round, or dinosaurs existed, etc; because it didnt say it in the Bible. Its called DELUSIONAL. Science has explained FAR MORE than what you want to admit. It proved to the world that the Earth isnt the center of the universe, it proved the sun did not revolve around the earth (check your Catholic history much?), it proved the world is round, it proved we are not the only planet in the solar system, and I can keep going on and on:)
I have nothing against religion itself; but I do have something against people that use it to try and 'change history' by lying to everyone (and themselves). Hitler did the same thing, you know?
Do yourself a favor, and pick up some books in your local library. There is a wealth of information contained about everything; it has been hashed and rehashed over and over again. Its good information out there and a lot of it is easy to read. They say reading many books over time improves your intelligence... you better get cracking, because you've got a lot of catching up to do with the rest of the world not stuck in a delusional fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Its Bush's fault!!! Better blame those mudslides in the western US on him too while we're at it!!!
Ah I see :) Our vernacular was not backwards compatible ;)
:)
When I hear the word quality I think of how badly Mercedes and BMW lack it in the automobile arena, etc
Running higher clockspeeds and larger L2 cache doesnt make a processor "better technology"
The P4 was created as a marketing gimmick in the first place. It took it several years before it finally moved ahead of AMD K7.
This just shows that Intel either isnt paying attention or doesnt care. AMD has a better line of processors in speed and affordability(especially in the server-box market) and thats just the bottom line. I don't think quality is a problem or even a question here; because both chipmakers put out great quality chips IMO.
Civ 4 ran JUST fine for me and most of the people out there. I've got a A64 3200 and a 9800XT that I got about 1.5 years ago and it runs perfect on it. Not exactly modern hardware IMO either.
You'd better pay attention more to FEAR or Quake4; both of which IMO are good games but required brand new systems nearly to run full settings.
I could run Doom3 will AF and AA at setting down from full and get a beautiful framerate. But FEAR and Quake4 bogged down like hell.
Amen!!! Oopsie ;)
:)
I've been battling the same crap on various forums. MANY just don't understand this fact at all. Its a common delusion that permeates everything about ID, Creationism and the ultra-right-wing religious groups.
Mom always said there's people way out in the ditch on both sides of the fence while many others are just havin a good time cuttin the grass
Sorry but there arent many larger buildings; I think you're assuming buildings, such as the Pentagon with quick evacuations are an apples to apples measuring stick vs something like the World Trade Center.
Well, its obvious you didnt really think it through much; or that you simply ignored the fact that its MUCH harder to evacuate a building with many floors vs a building with fewer but larger floors. It creates a HUGE bottleneck; especially when a large plane crashes halfway up the tower, blocking many floors from getting out via normal means.
The fire department sent in more people because they were trying to evacuate EVERYONE. Not everyone has such a Machiavellian view on running such things as you. Some people are also willing to die to save people. What you just said, belittles the sacrifices those MEN made to save lives. If you were standing before me and made that statement, I'd slap you so hard, your eyeballs would pop out.
Do you work at Home Depot? Such serious toolage, I'd imagine a toolbox and toolshed wouldnt be enough.
Signing orders that violated the US Constitution? How's that? Last I checked they were warranted by the Patriot Act. Since you're not really grown up yet, prolly 16 years old, with acne, weigh about 110lbs at 6' tall, and still live with your parents; you wouldnt understand. Too idealistic for the modern world. You complain about stupid problems that people from countries like China, Cuba, North Korea and others, don't even have the right to speak about.
Yes. My Lexus SC300. Not from the factory turbocharged; but me installing a turbokit myself and still running everything else stock.
;) After tuning and the kit installed; I dynoed 412whp at 10psi of boost. I got between 17-18mpg combined city WHEN I kept my foot out of it. If I constantly floored it all the time, which was EXTEMELY hard not to do in a car that instantly gains 230 horsepower to the wheels, I'd get about 14-15.
:) I've always wanted one. Only trouble is the reliability of the motor and thats the only reason I didnt get one. I do like how people are dropping LS1s into them now (and even a couple people trying to drop in the LS7 from the new Z06). I'm looking at getting an NSX next and turbocharging that. I want a car that has the entire package and is still reliable and looks good. :)
N/A it gets around 18mpg combined city and highway driving. I live out in the boonies
While the data you show is true; its still apples to oranges; in MOST Manufacturer cars that offer turbo and non-turbo options, they lower the compression ratio a significant amount to increase the safety margin. They've got to watch out for Joe Schmoe that doesnt change his oil often, and Joe Schmoe who keeps driving the car with a check engine light on. My car stock is 10:1. Its brother, the Supra, in Twinturbo form has a 8.5:1 ratio.... and it gets worse gas mileage, as you stated. Another big reason being its sequential turbos spool quite quickly in the powerband, and its harder to "stay out of it".
But keeping higher compression ratio like 10:1 or 9.5:1 is very viable provided you keep the boost lower. It has much more response and gets better gas mileage than an equivalent 8:1 or 8.5:1 car.
Look at the previous year Mazda Miata vs the MAZDASPEED Miata. The normal Miata making 23-28mpg with 10:1 compression vs the turbo Miata making 20-26mpg. averaged out thats 25.5 combined vs 23 combined. To me, thats almost identical. Especially in a world with inaccurate EPA numbers.
I like FDs as well
If you want to make the same amount of power (or something close) with a supercharger, you'd have to run an aftercooler. The argument you make is true VS the older Garret turbos. But vs the newer GT turbos from garret and PTE, its not true. GT turbos are A LOT more efficient than their old counterparts used to be. If you have a chance, check out the maps for them vs similarly sized older models. Like the newer T67 (not the Mitsu T67) made by PTE. 67mm compressor and GT cartridge. vs like say, an older T66 based on the T-series cartridge.
Centrifugal units are the worst. They dont make power until later in the rpm band. Turbos make FAR MORE midrange and top-end.... I'm going by the numbers here. There's a reason the supercharged Cobra boys are switching to TT setups instead of upgrading the stock blower. More power, more powerband, more reliability, better sound (IMO - the ported shroud turbos sound like a fricken jet), drives them to make the switch.
Don't forget Biodiesel will work in any diesel engine. Its not a fossil fuel. You can refine it in your backyard with used cooking grease from a restaurant. Oh and BMW might have a good idea here. I trust they'll put it in a butt-ugly car using I-drive, and then arrogantly come to the press and tell people "well you'll just have to get used to it, because we arent going to make it look nice" a la Chris Bangle ("Bungle") Oh and then the car itself will run fine, until the window motors stop working; and then the radio stops working; then the seats stop working; and then the car won't crank anymore. Bottom line? BMW needs to learn to make reliable cars instead of spending R&D on coming up with more stuff to break.
The supercharger is NOWHERE NEAR as efficient as a turbocharger. Depending on what kind of blower being used, it can be even worse. They totally kill the gas mileage too. Even under light load the engine is still having to turn the supercharger.
Superchargers have no advantages that can't be done by a properly sized turbocharger (powerbands come to mind); and the turbocharger has a whole ton of advantages a supercharger could only dream about. Only downsides are that its a little more complicated to install (very easy if you know what you're doing) and superchargers have smaller packaging (which tosses them in with the argument for FWD cars!).
Sorry but that's not true. Under light loads, turbocharged engines get almost identical gas mileage. The only restriction in most turbocharged cars is REALLY the turbine blades... after that its pretty much free-flow (except for a cat or two of course).
Today's more common GT turbos are VERY efficient compared to the older turbos that cars from the 90s would run.
Saab needs to spend its R&D dollars on building more reliable cars; not re-engineering some technology that allows them only a few small benefits.
Well the strength isnt going to increase without some activity, but one would presume that an average individual would at least have been working out in the gym for several years before even contemplating it.
Ligaments grow in response to strength and size gains. If your average, weak, slashdotter geek; who weighs 120lbs, has 9 inch biceps and cant bench or squat 95lbs used the stuff; yeah they would overload their system pretty quickly and lead to some pretty bad injuries.
Rotator Cuff injuries come to mind. Many real gym-buffs have stretch marks from their youth when they began working out; especially under the Deltoids. Usually occurs right above the armpit; where the pectoralis major attaches to the upper arm bone. The shoulder-area (especially front delt and pecs) are usually one of the quickest to grow when first starting out; and I'd bet the muscle would grow large (relatively) quite quickly.
Of course, to counter these arguments... there are several bodybuilders who have documented (some presumed) genetic mutations to where they have a much lower amount of Myostatin in their system than the average mesomorph somatype. Frank Zane comes to mind... the guy could grow just by looking at weight equipment.
I agree with your assessment though. Most average Americans would use it, and not workout, and not eat right and they'd gain a bunch of extra muscle mass; for which they'd have to eat more for, and would be overloaded to instantly have to carry it all around.
How's that? PROVE it, right here, right now that evolution is a belief system.
I want to see some more Creationist-dogma. It makes for great cannon-fodder on my blog.
You mean the LACK of scientific method that goes into explaining creationism. Its quite obvious you've NEVER studied any kind of natural science.
:)
How do I know? Because if you had, you would realize the inrefutable evidence that evolution exists, and has exists for billions of years. Its why Homo Sapiens Sapiens began to appear 3 million years ago; and its why we're the only hominids left. (Unless you believe the occaisional bigfoot argument - and you being a Creationist, I wouldnt put it past you).
What makes you think there's all this evidence out there thats totally bunk? There is no scientific method put into Creationism; that is one of its main faults. Its one of the main reasons REAL scientists are so very much AGAINST it. They are totally open to new theories, but REAL theories that have evidence and real analytical research done for them; not some whimsical, ARROGANT view of some Bible-thumper that thinks humanity is the pinnacle of all things on the earth or some BS like that.
But you won't do any research. You'll continue to say dinosaurs aren't over 65 million years old, and that all of these species that used to exist (and have been PROVEN TO EXIST) over billions of years either never really were around or that their fossil-dating method is 'flawed'. I've researched into creationism, I've done my homework. All the main points in the 'religo-science' are completely flat out wrong; and based upon presumptions that other data is flawed.
We have another word for people who think they see a 'truth' or a 'trend' and will blindly believe it no matter the surmounting evidence proving it wrong. My great-grandmother (RIP) being a good candidate, she wouldnt believe the Earth was round, or dinosaurs existed, etc; because it didnt say it in the Bible. Its called DELUSIONAL. Science has explained FAR MORE than what you want to admit. It proved to the world that the Earth isnt the center of the universe, it proved the sun did not revolve around the earth (check your Catholic history much?), it proved the world is round, it proved we are not the only planet in the solar system, and I can keep going on and on
I have nothing against religion itself; but I do have something against people that use it to try and 'change history' by lying to everyone (and themselves). Hitler did the same thing, you know?
Do yourself a favor, and pick up some books in your local library. There is a wealth of information contained about everything; it has been hashed and rehashed over and over again. Its good information out there and a lot of it is easy to read. They say reading many books over time improves your intelligence... you better get cracking, because you've got a lot of catching up to do with the rest of the world not stuck in a delusional fallacy.
I do appreciate your ignorance. It made me cry.