Most web browsers will run on a P100. Obviously both groups have been lead around by numbers that are only realistic in a lab( or in tomshardware, his living room)Don't buy something because the numbers look good, buy it because the performance meets or exceeds your needs.
And the biggest liars of all try wave it all away with a silly quip. I trust numbers that are verifiable and reproducible far more than I trust someone giving their take on what is "enough".
I'm very happy with my almost 10 year old SGI's ( indigo2,indy,onyx) and even more happy with my new ones O2+ Octane2 , Origin 200. My X86 box is almost 2 years old(733p3) They fit me fine . So don't bicker about who has a faster machine playing quake3.
This makes no sense. The point of this whole discussion is comparing the two platforms for someone who is looking at buying a new machine for 3D rendering. In this field you'll notice that the images rendered per HOUR on a Dual Athlon 1800+ is a mere 40.4 images (a minute and a half per frame), and you're saying that people don't need the power? If I were into 3D animation I'd dream of having a machine that rendered 60 frames per second, not a frame every minute and a half, yet the reality is that that's the best of the best without really going out there. I don't recall anyone mentioning Quake 3.
However, since you brought it up in your quest to claim that there's ample processor power in your 2-year old PC: My "play" machine is a Pentium 3 833 with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce2 MX400: On the game Operations Flashpoint I get about 10 frame per second in any forested area, and it drops to a crawl in heavy battles (and I run at lower detail levels as a matter of necessity). Recently I thought I'd see what Falcon 4 was up to so I installed it again (I bought it in 1998 to put it into perspective), installed the 1.08 patch and the Superpak patch : In any sort of medium battle there are second long stutters frequently. Processor power isn't even REMOTELY what it can be, and just because you feel that you're adequately served doesn't say anything for other people.
Some quick math shows the countries included in the GEANT project to have a combined land mass of 3,020,000 sq. km. The continental United States has a land mass of ~7,300,000 sq. km (excluding Alaska), but of course if you're talking about Europe then you might as well add Canada in there at another ~9,200,000 sq. km. Of course you are 100% correct: It is astounding how many standards Europe ratifies with the many languages, cultures, etc.
Having said that I said in another message that this really didn't seem all that big of a pipe, which of course rose the ire of defensive Europeans, yet take a look at http://www.psi.net/news/pr/00/dec13.html (that's from a year ago), http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/1bh754256.html...hell I can find dozens of carriers that have OC-192 or better backbones all over North America.
The `word' I actually wanted was "more so": Sorry about skipping the space there, and my poseurness is made apparent by my attempts to pretend to be a touch typist.
First thing is, heatsinks are much larger today and probably have a much greater risk of falling off. Not to say that risk in itself is very high. Furthermore, the fact is that Intel does offer this kind of protection now and AMD does not. It's simply one area where the Intel chip beats the AMD, and makes it (to me) seem of higher quality.
I believe that recent AMD chips do indeed have thermal overload protection, though it does require the involvement of the motherboard (I haven't looked into it, but it could be that Intel is just the same. Anyone know for sure?). Nice feature, sure, but to call it a quality issue just seems silly : If they put a titanium case around the processor to allow it to survive 4000G impacts, would that be a quality issue or a unnecessary gimmick?
There are two reasons I'm using an Intel chip and motherboard: Stability, and RDRAM. I know everybody hates it, but some of the things I use are memory intensive and DDR RAM just does not compare.
Totally agree. Dual-channel RDRAM is expensive, but very fast. That solution scales too, doesn't it? (i.e. technically can't they easily make quad-channel, octuple-channel, etc.).
This network is much faster than anything currently in use in America.
Sorry to ruin your day but America is behind on this one;)
Perhaps I've given the wrong impression, but my post was not a dick size comparison between nations or continents (I'm moreso replying in that sentence to the much ruder AC post preceding yours): Indeed the fiber and hardware was made in many different countries anyways, so where it was deployed is largely irrelevant to "national pride" because everyone is involved anyways (i.e. I highly doubt that that network only uses European hardware and technology).
Having said that, my point is moreso that we still have a LONG way to go in the internet backbones: If that humungous pipe can support a mere 5,000 cable modem users downloading at a moderate pace, then it really puts it into perspective as far as social ramifications.
Well, these "metrics" you claim to trust so much also indicate that the IBM 75GXP drives have a "normal" failure rate. And we all know the truth about that, don't we?
You see this really is humorous: You see a Slashdot story with a couple of people saying that their 75GXP failed, and you're sold (obviously just like the AMD issue). I actually HAVE a 75GXP that hasn't failed, and I am prone to believing IBM that the failure rate is normal. Let me put it another way: I know lots of people who are sure that Honda cars are the biggest POS out there because they had a lemon that had 27 faults, but the industry statistics say that they're the exception, not the rule. If there was more than anecdotal evidence (or biased polling) that the IBM drives were unreliable then I would be extremely happy to listen and take action based on it.
which, by the way, you haven't even tried out
I remember back in the BBS days asking a sysop to remove a "CPU Speed Up" program that promised to "convert your 386 to a 486/66!". The Sysop refused claiming that lots of people claimed that it really did vastly improve the speed of their systems. It's called the placebo effect, and it's one of the biggest truisms about people: People are extremely unreliable metrics of anything, because most people go into an evaluation with preconceived notions. As such, I'll be a little more trustworthy of site after site after site after site giving methodologies and performance metrics that show the Athlon XP winning. Again when Intel comes out with a cost effective (meaning cost effective all around: Memory, MB, etc.) high performing chip then I'm there, but as it stands there is a clear winner.
I'm not trying to be a poseur, but really it doesn't. Let me put it into perspective another way: Right now with my measly cable modem I can download from many sites at 2Mbps+ (I get a sustained 220KB/s from Microsoft). That means that a mere 77 of me can saturate a T3, and 5,000 of me can saturate a 10Gbps. Now everyone doesn't download at the same time, but when you're talking about Europe with 100s of millions of people... BTW: I realize that this is a research network not for public consumption, but my point is moreso that it's apparently such a big deal that these 10Gbps connections exist. This naturally makes me wonder what sort of backbones exist on the North America network, because I never have a problem downloading at 220KB/second, so I presume it must be pretty extraordinary.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Go outside and start up your car and then pull the plug in the radiator and see what happens after a while: I think you'll be unpleasantly surprized. Actually, get on the highway and cut the fluid to your brakes and see what happens then. Boy are you in for a treat! Go down and stick peanut butter in your DVD player and see if it automatically cleans itself. Throw a lot of nuts and bolts into your washer machine and see how it survives.
The hilarious thing is that Intel chips "caught fire" if the heatsink was taken off until very recently (since the 486), when they had to put such protection as the 1 lb heatsinks had a high likelihood of falling off, but now to the FUDmeisters this is a MAJOR issue: "EGADS! WHAT IF THE HEATSINK FALLS OFF!". Of course to anyone who has actually tried taking a heatsink off, you know that the probability of that on most systems is about as likely as expecting the system to withstand being driven over by a dump truck.
I'm not sure about you guys, but I noticed a really subtle pro-AMD bias in this article. For instance, the banner ad on the top of the page was for the new Athlon XPs and linked to AMD's page. And the author gave Intel a few token references, and then completely ignored them in the benchmarks.
The author performed benchmarks in a number of major 3D applications, and in all the AMD chips absolutely rocked: If you have a problem with the methodology, or feel that it isn't telling the whole story, then post your own site (that's the beauty of the net). I think it's fairly obvious that putting an ad for a Xeon chip on an article where it was pummeled probably doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
Well, as a very satisfied Pentium 4 owner and a somewhat satisfied Athlon owner, I can tell you that if you're serious about getting work done (not just overclocking your Unreal box), you'd be best off going with a P4
Let me get this straight: You refute an article that is packed full of actual metrics by saying that it's biased, and then you say that people should get a Pentium 4 if they're not going to "overclock their unreal box" (again an absolutely absurd supposition given that we're talking about an article where the AMD trounced the Intel chips in something much more serious than "overclocking their unreal box").
My Athlon had some heat and manufacturing issues (this is my second chip because the first one was DOA), and really isn't any faster in the real world than my P4.
The absolute definition of FUD. "Uh, sure the AMDs are faster, but they have heat and manufacturing issues!". Whatever. Metrics are all that matter, and the metrics in the industry say that the power consumption of upper end Intel's and AMDs are very similar (hence similar heat), and that major manufacturers have roughly equal DOA rates with both chips. The metrics also say time and time again that the "real world performance" of the AMDs are often faster than the Intels.
In fact, having rebuilt my kernel with the new Intel compiler, the P4 just screams and leaves the Athlon in the dust.
I see. Again please tell us when you've put up a site and posted some benchmarks with your platform and methodologies, because as it sits it sure sounds like a bunch of bullshit.
I'm going to shoot in the dark here and make a wild guess: You ran out and bought yourself a fancy new Pentium 4, spending top dollar to be the top dog in the tech arena (of course not doing any research), but now that you have your new purchase you're a little more sensitive whenever you see performance benchmarks, and everytime you see another review that shows the Athlon dominating it just burns at you, so here you are with your "real world" experience. Bullshit. I highly doubt you have an Athlon whatsoever.
I am not biased whatsoever, and if Intel comes out with something that is competitive with the XPs at a similar price then damnit, I'll be there. But I owe nothing to Intel, nor do I owe anything to AMD, so I lack "brand loyalty" and simply go for what is proven the best at the best $. If only more consumers were that way.
IBM and Motorola were collaborators on the PowerPC processor architecture (I think Apple was involved as well). It was the big power combo when they were looking to replace the 680x0 processors and Intel was coming on strong.
Hehe, you know maybe it's a perception thing but as a format Atari user I still slobber and think "pure speed!" when I hear 68040, 68050, 68060, etc.
The Gamecube is better than the PS/2, but lacks the graphics, sound, interface, and raw CPU power of the X-Box. I hate to say it, but I got a strong feeling Nintendo may end up like Sega did with the Dreamcast.
Totally agree with this. Indeed before this article I had though that the Gamecube was more powerful than it is, but now it seems that The Xbox very clearly eclipses it. Then again the Gamecube is a 1/3 cheaper and may end up with better games: We'll see how it plays out.
I saw a recent GT3 commercial showing some scenes I'd never seen before, and I have to say that it looked HORRIBLE : For all of the accolades, I'd seen better graphics in Driver on the PC a couple of years ago. I think most of the people who slobber over the PS2 or Gamecube have never seen anything never than a S3 VX on a PC.
I have great respect for nvidia too, but I certainly don't want to talk the ball and go home: They need competition, and it is fantastic that ATI stepped up to plate where so many other companies faltered (S3, 3dfx, Matrox, Trident, Cirrus Logic). On top of that the local price for a Radeon 8550 64MB Retail is $390 CDN, compared to almost $600 for a GeForce 3 Ti500: I have to confess that the Radeon 8550 is on the top of my list right now (so long as they don't try "optimizing" Q3 again). The OEM down-clocked version of it is going for $300 CDN. Those prices are fantastic, and the reality is that the cutting edge in consumer grade graphics cards always was about the $300 mark until nvidia started losing competition, at which point it has ebbed upwards of $600 now (when every other computer component, from monitor to hard drive, has dropped for the latest and greatest).
Canada is a pretty big country you know.:-) Seriously though two nights ago it was so warm in Southern Ontario that at two in the morning it was t-shirt weather: very distrubing.
Uh, because that's what they do? I don't go to sites like that (and they don't get linked) because the guy says "I tried them both and the Radeon just feels quicker". They get linked because while there's some subjective analysis, most of it is object analysis that they can get called on if they distort, hence it allows you to draw your own conclusions.
Re:Sorry, but FAX is still hulking along...
on
Email Turns Thirty
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My SMTP server to your SMTP server. Seriously I have always questioned claims that phone lines are more secure, as phone lines are an easy, static object that anyone with an iota of technical knowledge can hook into (knowing specifically who their victim is) at the local phone junction. Trying to grab someone's packets without controlling their direct ISP is significantly more difficult.
Let me put it another way: There's a business that you want to steal financial information from -> Do you go to the phone line feed on the outside of their building and tap into the wires, or look in their garbage, etc., or do you get an @Home connection and hope they broadcast on your subnet?
I'm fairly certain that Schumacher's Samson like powers come from the animosity many of the F1 watching public feels for him: We empower him with negative energies.
Hehe. Seriously though no matter how many times I've questioned his sportsmanship (or lack thereof) and questionable tactics, I have never questioned or doubted his immense abilities.
Imagine if the US had a driver in F1: F1 would take off in the US. Already here in Canada F1 is large and has a good following, largely because people have a Canadian in Jacques Villeneuve to root for (yeah yeah...he lives in Monaco but he voluntarily calls himself a Canadian proudly). Cheers!
Symptoms of game addiction include falling behind in school and work and basically deferring everything else in your life so you can play, she said. Compulsive playing tends to mask underlying problems such as depression, anger and low self-esteem, said Orzack, who said she was once hooked on computer solitaire.
Quite contrary: Compulsive (meaning doing it when it's no longer enjoyable) ANYTHING (be it jogging, game playing, gambling, masturbating, whatever) is usually a direct indication of depression, etc. Most people attempt to avoid this fact though by twisting the reality around: When I see a guy who lays at home smoking pot all day, I see someone with some mental health problems. When many others see the same guy they see an evil victim of pot who just needs to stamp the habit and then he'll fly straight. How utterly absurd.
Anything is an addiction to people who aren't into it looking at other people who are. When I was young I spent lots of time plugging away at my computer (C64, Atari 800XL, etc.) and this was unhealthy and not right to anyone who wasn't into this themselves, but sitting in front of a TV for 5 hours every night was perfectly fine.
Personally I'm sick of people addicted to their SUVs and shopping malls, driving on highways and listening to "radio", reading their addictive newspapers and addictively rearing kids. Poor people need some guidance.
Oh man the Top Dog thing had me busting a gut. Top Gun is a cheesy, extraordinarily lame movie, but I still love it: There's something about the clean blue skies, etc. There's a certain irony in the fact that many laserdisc/DVD demo setups still show Top Gun as the big demo of the visual acuity and sounds, despite the fact that it's some 15 years old.
The F-14 is still a beautiful fighter, albeit seriously outdated. Actually the F-111 Aardvark was one amazing bomber/fighter.
Cogeco has been a great ISP, and I'll stick with them, OC12s for a town with 127,000 is pretty good, many ISPs in NY don't have close to that bandwidth
Howdy Halton regional neighbour! Agreed: Cogeco seems to be an extremely competent broadband provider and I am very happy to be with them during this time. It's the clown companies like Rogers that seemed to deal with the situation by covering their eyes that will suffer if the switch does turn off this evening.
Right now I enjoy download speeds of ~220KB/second on my cable modem, or > a T1, yet I'm paying about about 1/25th the price of a T1 connection, so I would not be at all adverse to bandwidth caps/additional charges if it was required for economic viability of the solution, presuming that the capped numbers were reasonable throughput numbers (for example the original @Home suggestion of 2GB/month is absurdly low. I'd 10 - 20GB/month would be reasonable). My electric feed lets me suck many kW off the electric grid, but that doesn't mean that I've set up a resistor bank to warm the neighbourhood.
The idea of a cable modem and the pricing of the service, though, is not "you have 1.5Mbps and can use it at 100% 24/7", but rather "Here's 1.5Mbps to speed the times that you do use your PC" : There is no way that they reasonably anticipate you passing 13GB/day of traffic a day. To put it another way: it's nice to have 1.5Mbps so that when I do browse to Slashdot, or grab a file, it happens quickly, however I can't reasonably assume that therefore I can grab files at 1.5Mbps 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Check out the prices of a unmetered full-T1 line versus a cable modem.
What relevance does the number of devices behind the cable modem have? The reality is that the real load on their system is gross throughput, and if there really is a problem of abusers then the natural solution will be in the realm of additional bandwidth costs: Joe will be a lot less likely to set up a 802.11 network if it costs him $5 / GB past 5GB or whatever.
As a bit of perspective here: I hope they didn't have to do any of this, but the reality is that the "honest" among us end up paying when people abuse these sort of commercial services : i.e. they price based upon the requirements to support the average Joe's bandwidth, so when BillyBob opens up his cable modem to 10Mbps with SNMP and then sets up a warez FTP site and shares his connection with his apartment complex, then that ends up cost ME more in the long run (or alternately, and worse, the service is withdrawn entirely because it isn't economically viable).
Slashdot Mirror
Most web browsers will run on a P100. Obviously both groups have been lead around by numbers that are only realistic in a lab( or in tomshardware, his living room)Don't buy something because the numbers look good, buy it because the performance meets or exceeds your needs.
And the biggest liars of all try wave it all away with a silly quip. I trust numbers that are verifiable and reproducible far more than I trust someone giving their take on what is "enough".
I'm very happy with my almost 10 year old SGI's ( indigo2 ,indy ,onyx) and even more happy with my new ones O2+ Octane2 , Origin 200. My X86 box is almost 2 years old(733p3) They fit me fine . So don't bicker about who has a faster machine playing quake3.
This makes no sense. The point of this whole discussion is comparing the two platforms for someone who is looking at buying a new machine for 3D rendering. In this field you'll notice that the images rendered per HOUR on a Dual Athlon 1800+ is a mere 40.4 images (a minute and a half per frame), and you're saying that people don't need the power? If I were into 3D animation I'd dream of having a machine that rendered 60 frames per second, not a frame every minute and a half, yet the reality is that that's the best of the best without really going out there. I don't recall anyone mentioning Quake 3.
However, since you brought it up in your quest to claim that there's ample processor power in your 2-year old PC: My "play" machine is a Pentium 3 833 with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce2 MX400: On the game Operations Flashpoint I get about 10 frame per second in any forested area, and it drops to a crawl in heavy battles (and I run at lower detail levels as a matter of necessity). Recently I thought I'd see what Falcon 4 was up to so I installed it again (I bought it in 1998 to put it into perspective), installed the 1.08 patch and the Superpak patch : In any sort of medium battle there are second long stutters frequently. Processor power isn't even REMOTELY what it can be, and just because you feel that you're adequately served doesn't say anything for other people.
Some quick math shows the countries included in the GEANT project to have a combined land mass of 3,020,000 sq. km. The continental United States has a land mass of ~7,300,000 sq. km (excluding Alaska), but of course if you're talking about Europe then you might as well add Canada in there at another ~9,200,000 sq. km. Of course you are 100% correct: It is astounding how many standards Europe ratifies with the many languages, cultures, etc.
Having said that I said in another message that this really didn't seem all that big of a pipe, which of course rose the ire of defensive Europeans, yet take a look at http://www.psi.net/news/pr/00/dec13.html (that's from a year ago), http://www.x-changemag.com/hotnews/1bh754256.html. ..hell I can find dozens of carriers that have OC-192 or better backbones all over North America.
The `word' I actually wanted was "more so": Sorry about skipping the space there, and my poseurness is made apparent by my attempts to pretend to be a touch typist.
First thing is, heatsinks are much larger today and probably have a much greater risk of falling off. Not to say that risk in itself is very high. Furthermore, the fact is that Intel does offer this kind of protection now and AMD does not. It's simply one area where the Intel chip beats the AMD, and makes it (to me) seem of higher quality.
I believe that recent AMD chips do indeed have thermal overload protection, though it does require the involvement of the motherboard (I haven't looked into it, but it could be that Intel is just the same. Anyone know for sure?). Nice feature, sure, but to call it a quality issue just seems silly : If they put a titanium case around the processor to allow it to survive 4000G impacts, would that be a quality issue or a unnecessary gimmick?
There are two reasons I'm using an Intel chip and motherboard: Stability, and RDRAM. I know everybody hates it, but some of the things I use are memory intensive and DDR RAM just does not compare.
Totally agree. Dual-channel RDRAM is expensive, but very fast. That solution scales too, doesn't it? (i.e. technically can't they easily make quad-channel, octuple-channel, etc.).
This network is much faster than anything currently in use in America. ;)
Sorry to ruin your day but America is behind on this one
Perhaps I've given the wrong impression, but my post was not a dick size comparison between nations or continents (I'm moreso replying in that sentence to the much ruder AC post preceding yours): Indeed the fiber and hardware was made in many different countries anyways, so where it was deployed is largely irrelevant to "national pride" because everyone is involved anyways (i.e. I highly doubt that that network only uses European hardware and technology).
Having said that, my point is moreso that we still have a LONG way to go in the internet backbones: If that humungous pipe can support a mere 5,000 cable modem users downloading at a moderate pace, then it really puts it into perspective as far as social ramifications.
Geesh, apparently someone needs to receive to be sent to re-education camp.
Well, these "metrics" you claim to trust so much also indicate that the IBM 75GXP drives have a "normal" failure rate. And we all know the truth about that, don't we?
You see this really is humorous: You see a Slashdot story with a couple of people saying that their 75GXP failed, and you're sold (obviously just like the AMD issue). I actually HAVE a 75GXP that hasn't failed, and I am prone to believing IBM that the failure rate is normal. Let me put it another way: I know lots of people who are sure that Honda cars are the biggest POS out there because they had a lemon that had 27 faults, but the industry statistics say that they're the exception, not the rule. If there was more than anecdotal evidence (or biased polling) that the IBM drives were unreliable then I would be extremely happy to listen and take action based on it.
which, by the way, you haven't even tried out
I remember back in the BBS days asking a sysop to remove a "CPU Speed Up" program that promised to "convert your 386 to a 486/66!". The Sysop refused claiming that lots of people claimed that it really did vastly improve the speed of their systems. It's called the placebo effect, and it's one of the biggest truisms about people: People are extremely unreliable metrics of anything, because most people go into an evaluation with preconceived notions. As such, I'll be a little more trustworthy of site after site after site after site giving methodologies and performance metrics that show the Athlon XP winning. Again when Intel comes out with a cost effective (meaning cost effective all around: Memory, MB, etc.) high performing chip then I'm there, but as it stands there is a clear winner.
I'm not trying to be a poseur, but really it doesn't. Let me put it into perspective another way: Right now with my measly cable modem I can download from many sites at 2Mbps+ (I get a sustained 220KB/s from Microsoft). That means that a mere 77 of me can saturate a T3, and 5,000 of me can saturate a 10Gbps. Now everyone doesn't download at the same time, but when you're talking about Europe with 100s of millions of people... BTW: I realize that this is a research network not for public consumption, but my point is moreso that it's apparently such a big deal that these 10Gbps connections exist. This naturally makes me wonder what sort of backbones exist on the North America network, because I never have a problem downloading at 220KB/second, so I presume it must be pretty extraordinary.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Go outside and start up your car and then pull the plug in the radiator and see what happens after a while: I think you'll be unpleasantly surprized. Actually, get on the highway and cut the fluid to your brakes and see what happens then. Boy are you in for a treat! Go down and stick peanut butter in your DVD player and see if it automatically cleans itself. Throw a lot of nuts and bolts into your washer machine and see how it survives.
The hilarious thing is that Intel chips "caught fire" if the heatsink was taken off until very recently (since the 486), when they had to put such protection as the 1 lb heatsinks had a high likelihood of falling off, but now to the FUDmeisters this is a MAJOR issue: "EGADS! WHAT IF THE HEATSINK FALLS OFF!". Of course to anyone who has actually tried taking a heatsink off, you know that the probability of that on most systems is about as likely as expecting the system to withstand being driven over by a dump truck.
I'm not sure about you guys, but I noticed a really subtle pro-AMD bias in this article. For instance, the banner ad on the top of the page was for the new Athlon XPs and linked to AMD's page. And the author gave Intel a few token references, and then completely ignored them in the benchmarks.
The author performed benchmarks in a number of major 3D applications, and in all the AMD chips absolutely rocked: If you have a problem with the methodology, or feel that it isn't telling the whole story, then post your own site (that's the beauty of the net). I think it's fairly obvious that putting an ad for a Xeon chip on an article where it was pummeled probably doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
Well, as a very satisfied Pentium 4 owner and a somewhat satisfied Athlon owner, I can tell you that if you're serious about getting work done (not just overclocking your Unreal box), you'd be best off going with a P4
Let me get this straight: You refute an article that is packed full of actual metrics by saying that it's biased, and then you say that people should get a Pentium 4 if they're not going to "overclock their unreal box" (again an absolutely absurd supposition given that we're talking about an article where the AMD trounced the Intel chips in something much more serious than "overclocking their unreal box").
My Athlon had some heat and manufacturing issues (this is my second chip because the first one was DOA), and really isn't any faster in the real world than my P4.
The absolute definition of FUD. "Uh, sure the AMDs are faster, but they have heat and manufacturing issues!". Whatever. Metrics are all that matter, and the metrics in the industry say that the power consumption of upper end Intel's and AMDs are very similar (hence similar heat), and that major manufacturers have roughly equal DOA rates with both chips. The metrics also say time and time again that the "real world performance" of the AMDs are often faster than the Intels.
In fact, having rebuilt my kernel with the new Intel compiler, the P4 just screams and leaves the Athlon in the dust.
I see. Again please tell us when you've put up a site and posted some benchmarks with your platform and methodologies, because as it sits it sure sounds like a bunch of bullshit.
I'm going to shoot in the dark here and make a wild guess: You ran out and bought yourself a fancy new Pentium 4, spending top dollar to be the top dog in the tech arena (of course not doing any research), but now that you have your new purchase you're a little more sensitive whenever you see performance benchmarks, and everytime you see another review that shows the Athlon dominating it just burns at you, so here you are with your "real world" experience. Bullshit. I highly doubt you have an Athlon whatsoever.
I am not biased whatsoever, and if Intel comes out with something that is competitive with the XPs at a similar price then damnit, I'll be there. But I owe nothing to Intel, nor do I owe anything to AMD, so I lack "brand loyalty" and simply go for what is proven the best at the best $. If only more consumers were that way.
IBM and Motorola were collaborators on the PowerPC processor architecture (I think Apple was involved as well). It was the big power combo when they were looking to replace the 680x0 processors and Intel was coming on strong.
Hehe, you know maybe it's a perception thing but as a format Atari user I still slobber and think "pure speed!" when I hear 68040, 68050, 68060, etc.
The Gamecube is better than the PS/2, but lacks the graphics, sound, interface, and raw CPU power of the X-Box. I hate to say it, but I got a strong feeling Nintendo may end up like Sega did with the Dreamcast.
Totally agree with this. Indeed before this article I had though that the Gamecube was more powerful than it is, but now it seems that The Xbox very clearly eclipses it. Then again the Gamecube is a 1/3 cheaper and may end up with better games: We'll see how it plays out.
I saw a recent GT3 commercial showing some scenes I'd never seen before, and I have to say that it looked HORRIBLE : For all of the accolades, I'd seen better graphics in Driver on the PC a couple of years ago. I think most of the people who slobber over the PS2 or Gamecube have never seen anything never than a S3 VX on a PC.
I have great respect for nvidia too, but I certainly don't want to talk the ball and go home: They need competition, and it is fantastic that ATI stepped up to plate where so many other companies faltered (S3, 3dfx, Matrox, Trident, Cirrus Logic). On top of that the local price for a Radeon 8550 64MB Retail is $390 CDN, compared to almost $600 for a GeForce 3 Ti500: I have to confess that the Radeon 8550 is on the top of my list right now (so long as they don't try "optimizing" Q3 again). The OEM down-clocked version of it is going for $300 CDN. Those prices are fantastic, and the reality is that the cutting edge in consumer grade graphics cards always was about the $300 mark until nvidia started losing competition, at which point it has ebbed upwards of $600 now (when every other computer component, from monitor to hard drive, has dropped for the latest and greatest).
But that's what I get for living in Canada...
Canada is a pretty big country you know. :-) Seriously though two nights ago it was so warm in Southern Ontario that at two in the morning it was t-shirt weather: very distrubing.
Uh, because that's what they do? I don't go to sites like that (and they don't get linked) because the guy says "I tried them both and the Radeon just feels quicker". They get linked because while there's some subjective analysis, most of it is object analysis that they can get called on if they distort, hence it allows you to draw your own conclusions.
My SMTP server to your SMTP server. Seriously I have always questioned claims that phone lines are more secure, as phone lines are an easy, static object that anyone with an iota of technical knowledge can hook into (knowing specifically who their victim is) at the local phone junction. Trying to grab someone's packets without controlling their direct ISP is significantly more difficult.
Let me put it another way: There's a business that you want to steal financial information from -> Do you go to the phone line feed on the outside of their building and tap into the wires, or look in their garbage, etc., or do you get an @Home connection and hope they broadcast on your subnet?
I'm fairly certain that Schumacher's Samson like powers come from the animosity many of the F1 watching public feels for him: We empower him with negative energies.
Hehe. Seriously though no matter how many times I've questioned his sportsmanship (or lack thereof) and questionable tactics, I have never questioned or doubted his immense abilities.
Imagine if the US had a driver in F1: F1 would take off in the US. Already here in Canada F1 is large and has a good following, largely because people have a Canadian in Jacques Villeneuve to root for (yeah yeah...he lives in Monaco but he voluntarily calls himself a Canadian proudly). Cheers!
Symptoms of game addiction include falling behind in school and work and basically deferring everything else in your life so you can play, she said. Compulsive playing tends to mask underlying problems such as depression, anger and low self-esteem, said Orzack, who said she was once hooked on computer solitaire.
Quite contrary: Compulsive (meaning doing it when it's no longer enjoyable) ANYTHING (be it jogging, game playing, gambling, masturbating, whatever) is usually a direct indication of depression, etc. Most people attempt to avoid this fact though by twisting the reality around: When I see a guy who lays at home smoking pot all day, I see someone with some mental health problems. When many others see the same guy they see an evil victim of pot who just needs to stamp the habit and then he'll fly straight. How utterly absurd.
Anything is an addiction to people who aren't into it looking at other people who are. When I was young I spent lots of time plugging away at my computer (C64, Atari 800XL, etc.) and this was unhealthy and not right to anyone who wasn't into this themselves, but sitting in front of a TV for 5 hours every night was perfectly fine.
Personally I'm sick of people addicted to their SUVs and shopping malls, driving on highways and listening to "radio", reading their addictive newspapers and addictively rearing kids. Poor people need some guidance.
And, right now, there are no guns on Mars to force explorers away.
Oh I beg to differ!
Oh man the Top Dog thing had me busting a gut. Top Gun is a cheesy, extraordinarily lame movie, but I still love it: There's something about the clean blue skies, etc. There's a certain irony in the fact that many laserdisc/DVD demo setups still show Top Gun as the big demo of the visual acuity and sounds, despite the fact that it's some 15 years old.
The F-14 is still a beautiful fighter, albeit seriously outdated. Actually the F-111 Aardvark was one amazing bomber/fighter.
Cogeco has been a great ISP, and I'll stick with them, OC12s for a town with 127,000 is pretty good, many ISPs in NY don't have close to that bandwidth
Howdy Halton regional neighbour! Agreed: Cogeco seems to be an extremely competent broadband provider and I am very happy to be with them during this time. It's the clown companies like Rogers that seemed to deal with the situation by covering their eyes that will suffer if the switch does turn off this evening.
Right now I enjoy download speeds of ~220KB/second on my cable modem, or > a T1, yet I'm paying about about 1/25th the price of a T1 connection, so I would not be at all adverse to bandwidth caps/additional charges if it was required for economic viability of the solution, presuming that the capped numbers were reasonable throughput numbers (for example the original @Home suggestion of 2GB/month is absurdly low. I'd 10 - 20GB/month would be reasonable). My electric feed lets me suck many kW off the electric grid, but that doesn't mean that I've set up a resistor bank to warm the neighbourhood.
The idea of a cable modem and the pricing of the service, though, is not "you have 1.5Mbps and can use it at 100% 24/7", but rather "Here's 1.5Mbps to speed the times that you do use your PC" : There is no way that they reasonably anticipate you passing 13GB/day of traffic a day. To put it another way: it's nice to have 1.5Mbps so that when I do browse to Slashdot, or grab a file, it happens quickly, however I can't reasonably assume that therefore I can grab files at 1.5Mbps 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Check out the prices of a unmetered full-T1 line versus a cable modem.
What relevance does the number of devices behind the cable modem have? The reality is that the real load on their system is gross throughput, and if there really is a problem of abusers then the natural solution will be in the realm of additional bandwidth costs: Joe will be a lot less likely to set up a 802.11 network if it costs him $5 / GB past 5GB or whatever.
As a bit of perspective here: I hope they didn't have to do any of this, but the reality is that the "honest" among us end up paying when people abuse these sort of commercial services : i.e. they price based upon the requirements to support the average Joe's bandwidth, so when BillyBob opens up his cable modem to 10Mbps with SNMP and then sets up a warez FTP site and shares his connection with his apartment complex, then that ends up cost ME more in the long run (or alternately, and worse, the service is withdrawn entirely because it isn't economically viable).