What's so sad about the massive politicized anti-region-encoding movement, is that VHS tapes are also "region encoded", in that there are at least two entirely incompatible standards for encoding the video signal (NTSC and PAL) which are used throughout the world, and you can't buy a video tape from a region which uses PAL (such as Europe) and play it back in an NTSC region (such as the US). Apparently, the backers of this movement are so new to video, that they didn't experience this. And of course, it begs the question: how did small, independent film producers deliver their movies worldwide? A region-free DVD is, in fact, much less "region restricted" than a VHS tape, because it is 100% compatible with all playback equipment.
Some peers are called 'servers' since they contain more data and serve more people than others. Still, they are just peers.
Dude, your Athlon peecee running Linux is in absolutely no way, whatsoever, a peer of the cluster of 64-way UltraEnterprise 10K servers which power eBay. You're missing the point: P2P means consumer grade machines connecting to each other, and that's _not_ the traditional internet, which is large centralized servers develivering data to consumer grade machines.
Well, you wouldn't know if you read that article, since it was false. Thermal throttling has never even been observed on any P4 system in the field; I have never gotten my P4 system above 39 degrees, while the throttling point is 75. Besides, you can turn the feature off using IA32_CS_MISC_ENABLES (this is documented in volume 3 of the Pentium 4 manual). Of course, I'm certain that you didn't even bother to check, and are more confortable showing your ignorance on Slashdot.
Not that AMD shareholders like dealing with facts, but the P4 puts out about 25% less heat than Athlon. Even the Palamino with its much hyped power/heat reduction still puts out more heat than the P4 (or PIII).
I have no idea if you really know the situation are not, but if it is true that he hacked into the school's grade system, changed his grades, and sold access, then he definitely deserves to be punished to the absolute fullest extent. That definitely deserves suspension, or even expulsion. Not only is it theft and burgluray, but it's an insult to academic integrity.
From the article, and from the rest of the comments, people made it out to be something minor like reading teacher's e-mail or crashing the network. But changing grades is an extremely serious offence. He seriously got off very easy if all he got was a 10 day suspension (his own self-imposed punishment notwithstanding).
It's funny how pro-Napster == tech-savvy. There are lots of tech-ignorant people who are pro-Napster (do you think Chuck D. could explain how the memory ordering pipeline works in an OOO microprocessor?), and there are plenty of tech-savvy people who are anti-Napster (myself, for example).
AFAICT, the only reason Orrin Hatch is pro-Napster is because he is against the record companies. Not for artistic/ethical reasons, but because he thinks they should clean up the explicit lyrics, since he is part of the Christian Coalition, and thinks any music which doesn't praise God should be banned (you will recall that the RIAA is militantly against music labelling, censorship, and banning. Hilary Rosen herself won an award from the ALCU for her exemplary work in fighting for the First Amendment - against the PMRC, headed by none other than Tipper Gore).
Siding with someone just because they came to the "correct" view (in this case, pro-Napster) is extremely dangerous when you had wildly different means of getting to that view (for you, probably "information wants to be free"; for Hatch, the Christian Coalition's hatred of the RIAA). If you follow Hatch's reasoning, you will also think that prayer should be mandatory in school and evolution should be banned from biology class.
Hatch, of course, is also anti-Microsoft (which itself is neither a tech-savvy or tech-ignorant stance), and in fact was the principle instigator of the federal anti-trust suit. I believe the main reason for this is because Caldera is based in his home state (who, you will recall, launched their own anti-trust suit against MS nearly five years ago).
Not only is MP P4 coming out before MP Athlon (P4 in May, Athlon in June), but MP capabilities came considerably earlier to P4 relative to the first launch. In this case, MP capabilities will be available about six months (May 2001) after the original launch (November 2000), but in the case of Athlon, it was almost two years (June 2001) after the original launch (August 1999).
Foster (dual P4) was supposed to be launched last Tuesday, but Intel announced that it was delayed for a couple of weeks due to a problem with the package (not a silicon problem). It is supposed to be launched by the end of the month. There was an article about this on CNET on Tuesday. The delay didn't get much press; I don't think anybody actually believed that Foster was coming out so soon.:-)
Interestingly, even single processor systems with the P4 Xeon perform much better than the regular P4, due to the different chipset (i860 vs. i850). P4/i850 is already number one in base and peak SPECint, and base SPECfp (only the 833 MHz Alpha beats it at peak SPECfp), but I think P4/i860 should finally be number one at every benchmark when it's launched (not to mention the cheesy benchmarks that the unsophisticated benchmarks sites use).
Intel actually _shipped_ 1 GHz parts before AMD did. AMD announced first, and shipped in quantity first, but Intel _shipped_ first. Of course quibbling over something that was two days apart is moot. It was AMD's press release at the time which compared the first GHz processor release to the first transatlantic flight. Right, Jerry, whatever you say.
According to Andy Grove's Only the Paranoid Survive, the average user using an Excel spreadsheet would encounter the bug once every 30,000 years. So, generally it was not very serious but I wouldn't balance my checkbook on it (I wouldn't balance my checkbook on an overclocked machine either).
Something is very wrong with your bread. And you. Are you a cold blooded reptile?
My P4 system idles at 30 degrees, and peaks under heavy load at about 40 degrees. I have never seen or heard of a P4 system in my life which was above about 45 degrees.
Water to shower is something closer to 100 degrees and bread needs something even higher to toast.
Therefore, I can conclude that you are not human, you do not eat typical bread, or you really enjoy lightly toasted bread and/or cold showers.
And let me guess - you didn't even bother to read the article, did you? Because this issue is specifically addressed. Here's the relevant section:
During our tests the Pentium 4 1.7GHz always operated at 1.7GHz and did not fall victim to any clock throttling because of heat. You shouldn't worry about the Pentium 4 dropping its clock speed because of heat unless you are running the processor without a heatsink/fan installed.
The entirety of Western civilisation is based on the need to build new technologies and exploit the rest of the world for resources, both mineral and intellectual, to make this as rapid as possible.
Obviously you are a troll, but (for example) how has the western world exploited the non-western world in the computer industry? Do semiconductor companies hire sea pirates to steal all of the valuable sand on the shores of Africa and Asia?
Believe it or not, the music labels have an incredible incentive to create new music: to stay on top of the trends. What's popular today is not popular next year, and the record companies have to project years ahead of time which projects to invest in and which to cancel, based on forecasted popularity. Almost every new trend in pop music in the last fifty years was created by small labels (to name a few: rock, soul, hip-hop, and grunge), so the large labels, contrary to popular perception, do not create the trends, but follow them, and they're wrong far more often than right.
If their fingerprinting is at all sophisticated, it has got to be awfully easy to distinguish a real recording from just random gibberish (what a compressed or encrypted file would turn out to be), which it could then just reject as not being legitimate recorded sound. Detecting backwards would be more difficult (especially since some legitimate recordings contain sections which are backwards).
Another option is to keep it 'opt-in' so it would reject anything except what it recognizes.
First of all, don't look at peak, look at base. Anybody can get a high peak score, and they are not representative of the performance you can get.
The P4 is definitely faster than Athlon. On Tom's Hardware, P4 beat Athlon on 3 out of 4 benchmarks. P4 beats Athlon so easily on SPEC (especially FP). The only benchmarks which Athlon beats P4 on is old sysmark type benchmarks which contain lots of P6 optimized code, which have long been retired by their authors. AMDroids see one benchmark where AMD wins, and declare P4 a failure. Whatever.
As you can see from the scores you posted, P4 absolutely wipes the floor with Athlon on FP. Athlon FP performance is so dismal, it's not even funny. What _is_ funny though, is that Athlon has three FP units, and P4 has one, but P4 still beats Athlon clock-for-clock with its hands tied behind its back. In the spirit of AMD mangling benchmarks, I'd like to propose a new benchmark: performance vs. clock * execution units. At this benchmark, P4 is way over triple as efficient as Athlon.
The 1.7 GHz P4, scheduled for release in a week (?), will put P4 as the fastest CPU in the world at both FP and INT assuming it gets at least a 10% performanced boost (unless Compaq pulls a fast one and releases the 1 GHz EV68 in the next week). Athlon is not even close to a contender for fastest CPU.
If AMD marketed themselves on performance-per-clock versus Intel, and priced their processors accordingly, most consumers would react similarly to if Hyundai marketed miles-per-gallon (instead of horsepower) against BMW, and priced their cars accordingly. AMD simply does not have the credibility among most consumers to change the tide of processor marketing. I doubt even Intel would be able to pull it off. Fortunately for Intel, they only need to stand back and let the gigahertz speak for themselves, whereas AMD has to put out all of these benchmarks to prove performance. This is more costly, and less credible, for AMD.
The P4 beats every processor in the world (including Alpha) at integer, and outperforms every processor except for the fastest grade Alpha at FP. P3/Athlon are similar at integer, and signficantly worse at FP. The P4 also outperforms every processor (including RISC) at memory bandwidth (P3/Athlon do not come close). I suspect that Alpha might catch up to P4's memory bandwidth in 2003, when EV7 is released (which uses, I believe, quad-channel Rambus). AMD won't ever catch up unless they switch to Rambus (unlikely).
If Intel was smart, they would go to year-based naming. A Pentium '97 would like a lot more outdated today now that the Pentium 2001 is out, motivating people to upgrade, while the difference between Pentium II and Pentium 4 seems negligible (in name). I guess they depend on the clock speed to plan obsolescence.
Re:I've been steering people clear of the IV
on
Pentium IV study
·
· Score: 2
I bought a generic ATX Socket 7 motherboard in '99. By that time, practically every Socket 7 motherboard was ATX, and Socket 7 motherboards were plentiful well until at least '00 (and there is _still_ no problem finding them). In any case, I put the P100 into that motherboard (FYI, the original Pentium was a Socket 7 part). I changed the motherboard to the D850GB, and upgraded my 100 MHz Pentium system into a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 system.
Hey AMD fans....wake up: AMD would dearly love to charge as much (or more) per Mhz, but their brand value, distribution channels and other market factors dictate what they CAN charge for them. They would very happy to "gouge" you like Intel does. Welcome to the free market.
Indeed. The Celeron is priced at more than double the price of the Duron, and has lower performance (I forget how much exactly - perhaps 50% or 25%). But yet, the Celeron was a whopping 95% of the budget PC market.
Anybody who thinks that a company who makes a substantially superior product, and sells it for less than half the price, but still fails to capture more than 5% of the market, is a company who appears to be winning, or whose stock looks like a good buy, is living in some kind of alternate universe.
A lot of people forget that in business, the winner is not who makes the best product, or who has the lowest prices, but who makes the most money. In '00, Intel made over 10x as much profit as AMD, and we'll see next week if Q1'01 was any different.
If you think AMD has anything remotely close to 30% of the market, you are high on some seriously bad crack. In '00 AMD had $4.6 billion in revenue, and Intel had $33.7 billion in revenue. AMD had $1 billion in profit, and Intel had $10.5 billion. Last I heard, Intel had 84% of the market, and AMD had 14%. Remember, AMD has all but relinquished the sub-$1000 market to Intel (Celeron currently has 95% of this market), where most of the volume is. Not to menton mobile, corporate desktop, workstation, and server. AMD's mainstay is mid-range retail, which has a lot of visibilty, but little real impact.
As analyst Ashok Kumar said a couple of weeks ago, "I wouldn't buy AMD stock at any price." I concur. (Though I wouldn't buy Intel at its current price either).
One more thing... I don't care if you say that P4 has a 100 MHz bus, but be consistent: either say that P4 has 100 MHz and Athlon has 133 MHz, or say that P4 has 400 MHz and Athlon has 266 MHz. WHen you say that P4 has 100 MHz and Athlon has 266 MHz, you are grossly misrepresenting the products.
Slashdot Mirror
What's so sad about the massive politicized anti-region-encoding movement, is that VHS tapes are also "region encoded", in that there are at least two entirely incompatible standards for encoding the video signal (NTSC and PAL) which are used throughout the world, and you can't buy a video tape from a region which uses PAL (such as Europe) and play it back in an NTSC region (such as the US). Apparently, the backers of this movement are so new to video, that they didn't experience this. And of course, it begs the question: how did small, independent film producers deliver their movies worldwide? A region-free DVD is, in fact, much less "region restricted" than a VHS tape, because it is 100% compatible with all playback equipment.
Some peers are called 'servers' since they contain more data and serve more people than others. Still, they are just peers.
Dude, your Athlon peecee running Linux is in absolutely no way, whatsoever, a peer of the cluster of 64-way UltraEnterprise 10K servers which power eBay. You're missing the point: P2P means consumer grade machines connecting to each other, and that's _not_ the traditional internet, which is large centralized servers develivering data to consumer grade machines.
Well, you wouldn't know if you read that article, since it was false. Thermal throttling has never even been observed on any P4 system in the field; I have never gotten my P4 system above 39 degrees, while the throttling point is 75. Besides, you can turn the feature off using IA32_CS_MISC_ENABLES (this is documented in volume 3 of the Pentium 4 manual). Of course, I'm certain that you didn't even bother to check, and are more confortable showing your ignorance on Slashdot.
Not that AMD shareholders like dealing with facts, but the P4 puts out about 25% less heat than Athlon. Even the Palamino with its much hyped power/heat reduction still puts out more heat than the P4 (or PIII).
I have no idea if you really know the situation are not, but if it is true that he hacked into the school's grade system, changed his grades, and sold access, then he definitely deserves to be punished to the absolute fullest extent. That definitely deserves suspension, or even expulsion. Not only is it theft and burgluray, but it's an insult to academic integrity.
From the article, and from the rest of the comments, people made it out to be something minor like reading teacher's e-mail or crashing the network. But changing grades is an extremely serious offence. He seriously got off very easy if all he got was a 10 day suspension (his own self-imposed punishment notwithstanding).
It's funny how pro-Napster == tech-savvy. There are lots of tech-ignorant people who are pro-Napster (do you think Chuck D. could explain how the memory ordering pipeline works in an OOO microprocessor?), and there are plenty of tech-savvy people who are anti-Napster (myself, for example).
AFAICT, the only reason Orrin Hatch is pro-Napster is because he is against the record companies. Not for artistic/ethical reasons, but because he thinks they should clean up the explicit lyrics, since he is part of the Christian Coalition, and thinks any music which doesn't praise God should be banned (you will recall that the RIAA is militantly against music labelling, censorship, and banning. Hilary Rosen herself won an award from the ALCU for her exemplary work in fighting for the First Amendment - against the PMRC, headed by none other than Tipper Gore).
Siding with someone just because they came to the "correct" view (in this case, pro-Napster) is extremely dangerous when you had wildly different means of getting to that view (for you, probably "information wants to be free"; for Hatch, the Christian Coalition's hatred of the RIAA). If you follow Hatch's reasoning, you will also think that prayer should be mandatory in school and evolution should be banned from biology class.
Hatch, of course, is also anti-Microsoft (which itself is neither a tech-savvy or tech-ignorant stance), and in fact was the principle instigator of the federal anti-trust suit. I believe the main reason for this is because Caldera is based in his home state (who, you will recall, launched their own anti-trust suit against MS nearly five years ago).
Not only is MP P4 coming out before MP Athlon (P4 in May, Athlon in June), but MP capabilities came considerably earlier to P4 relative to the first launch. In this case, MP capabilities will be available about six months (May 2001) after the original launch (November 2000), but in the case of Athlon, it was almost two years (June 2001) after the original launch (August 1999).
Foster (dual P4) was supposed to be launched last Tuesday, but Intel announced that it was delayed for a couple of weeks due to a problem with the package (not a silicon problem). It is supposed to be launched by the end of the month. There was an article about this on CNET on Tuesday. The delay didn't get much press; I don't think anybody actually believed that Foster was coming out so soon. :-)
Interestingly, even single processor systems with the P4 Xeon perform much better than the regular P4, due to the different chipset (i860 vs. i850). P4/i850 is already number one in base and peak SPECint, and base SPECfp (only the 833 MHz Alpha beats it at peak SPECfp), but I think P4/i860 should finally be number one at every benchmark when it's launched (not to mention the cheesy benchmarks that the unsophisticated benchmarks sites use).
Intel actually _shipped_ 1 GHz parts before AMD did. AMD announced first, and shipped in quantity first, but Intel _shipped_ first. Of course quibbling over something that was two days apart is moot. It was AMD's press release at the time which compared the first GHz processor release to the first transatlantic flight. Right, Jerry, whatever you say.
Tell that to the people who bought AMD at $48.
According to Andy Grove's Only the Paranoid Survive, the average user using an Excel spreadsheet would encounter the bug once every 30,000 years. So, generally it was not very serious but I wouldn't balance my checkbook on it (I wouldn't balance my checkbook on an overclocked machine either).
Something is very wrong with your bread. And you. Are you a cold blooded reptile?
My P4 system idles at 30 degrees, and peaks under heavy load at about 40 degrees. I have never seen or heard of a P4 system in my life which was above about 45 degrees.
Water to shower is something closer to 100 degrees and bread needs something even higher to toast.
Therefore, I can conclude that you are not human, you do not eat typical bread, or you really enjoy lightly toasted bread and/or cold showers.
And let me guess - you didn't even bother to read the article, did you? Because this issue is specifically addressed. Here's the relevant section:
During our tests the Pentium 4 1.7GHz always operated at 1.7GHz and did not fall victim to any clock throttling because of heat. You shouldn't worry about the Pentium 4 dropping its clock speed because of heat unless you are running the processor without a heatsink/fan installed.
The entirety of Western civilisation is based on the need to build new technologies and exploit the rest of the world for resources, both mineral and intellectual, to make this as rapid as possible.
Obviously you are a troll, but (for example) how has the western world exploited the non-western world in the computer industry? Do semiconductor companies hire sea pirates to steal all of the valuable sand on the shores of Africa and Asia?
Believe it or not, the music labels have an incredible incentive to create new music: to stay on top of the trends. What's popular today is not popular next year, and the record companies have to project years ahead of time which projects to invest in and which to cancel, based on forecasted popularity. Almost every new trend in pop music in the last fifty years was created by small labels (to name a few: rock, soul, hip-hop, and grunge), so the large labels, contrary to popular perception, do not create the trends, but follow them, and they're wrong far more often than right.
If their fingerprinting is at all sophisticated, it has got to be awfully easy to distinguish a real recording from just random gibberish (what a compressed or encrypted file would turn out to be), which it could then just reject as not being legitimate recorded sound. Detecting backwards would be more difficult (especially since some legitimate recordings contain sections which are backwards).
Another option is to keep it 'opt-in' so it would reject anything except what it recognizes.
Introducing, in the 21st century, a chip without SMP capabilities, and that will still require you to buy a whole new mobo?
You mean the Athlon? Or are you running quad Athlons are your Socket 7 motherbaord from 1995?
First of all, don't look at peak, look at base. Anybody can get a high peak score, and they are not representative of the performance you can get.
The P4 is definitely faster than Athlon. On Tom's Hardware, P4 beat Athlon on 3 out of 4 benchmarks. P4 beats Athlon so easily on SPEC (especially FP). The only benchmarks which Athlon beats P4 on is old sysmark type benchmarks which contain lots of P6 optimized code, which have long been retired by their authors. AMDroids see one benchmark where AMD wins, and declare P4 a failure. Whatever.
As you can see from the scores you posted, P4 absolutely wipes the floor with Athlon on FP. Athlon FP performance is so dismal, it's not even funny. What _is_ funny though, is that Athlon has three FP units, and P4 has one, but P4 still beats Athlon clock-for-clock with its hands tied behind its back. In the spirit of AMD mangling benchmarks, I'd like to propose a new benchmark: performance vs. clock * execution units. At this benchmark, P4 is way over triple as efficient as Athlon.
The 1.7 GHz P4, scheduled for release in a week (?), will put P4 as the fastest CPU in the world at both FP and INT assuming it gets at least a 10% performanced boost (unless Compaq pulls a fast one and releases the 1 GHz EV68 in the next week). Athlon is not even close to a contender for fastest CPU.
If AMD marketed themselves on performance-per-clock versus Intel, and priced their processors accordingly, most consumers would react similarly to if Hyundai marketed miles-per-gallon (instead of horsepower) against BMW, and priced their cars accordingly. AMD simply does not have the credibility among most consumers to change the tide of processor marketing. I doubt even Intel would be able to pull it off. Fortunately for Intel, they only need to stand back and let the gigahertz speak for themselves, whereas AMD has to put out all of these benchmarks to prove performance. This is more costly, and less credible, for AMD.
The P4 beats every processor in the world (including Alpha) at integer, and outperforms every processor except for the fastest grade Alpha at FP. P3/Athlon are similar at integer, and signficantly worse at FP. The P4 also outperforms every processor (including RISC) at memory bandwidth (P3/Athlon do not come close). I suspect that Alpha might catch up to P4's memory bandwidth in 2003, when EV7 is released (which uses, I believe, quad-channel Rambus). AMD won't ever catch up unless they switch to Rambus (unlikely).
If Intel was smart, they would go to year-based naming. A Pentium '97 would like a lot more outdated today now that the Pentium 2001 is out, motivating people to upgrade, while the difference between Pentium II and Pentium 4 seems negligible (in name). I guess they depend on the clock speed to plan obsolescence.
I bought a generic ATX Socket 7 motherboard in '99. By that time, practically every Socket 7 motherboard was ATX, and Socket 7 motherboards were plentiful well until at least '00 (and there is _still_ no problem finding them). In any case, I put the P100 into that motherboard (FYI, the original Pentium was a Socket 7 part). I changed the motherboard to the D850GB, and upgraded my 100 MHz Pentium system into a 1.4 GHz Pentium 4 system.
Hey AMD fans....wake up: AMD would dearly love to charge as much (or more) per Mhz, but their brand value, distribution channels and other market factors dictate what they CAN charge for them. They would very happy to "gouge" you like Intel does. Welcome to the free market.
Indeed. The Celeron is priced at more than double the price of the Duron, and has lower performance (I forget how much exactly - perhaps 50% or 25%). But yet, the Celeron was a whopping 95% of the budget PC market.
Anybody who thinks that a company who makes a substantially superior product, and sells it for less than half the price, but still fails to capture more than 5% of the market, is a company who appears to be winning, or whose stock looks like a good buy, is living in some kind of alternate universe.
A lot of people forget that in business, the winner is not who makes the best product, or who has the lowest prices, but who makes the most money. In '00, Intel made over 10x as much profit as AMD, and we'll see next week if Q1'01 was any different.
If you think AMD has anything remotely close to 30% of the market, you are high on some seriously bad crack. In '00 AMD had $4.6 billion in revenue, and Intel had $33.7 billion in revenue. AMD had $1 billion in profit, and Intel had $10.5 billion. Last I heard, Intel had 84% of the market, and AMD had 14%. Remember, AMD has all but relinquished the sub-$1000 market to Intel (Celeron currently has 95% of this market), where most of the volume is. Not to menton mobile, corporate desktop, workstation, and server. AMD's mainstay is mid-range retail, which has a lot of visibilty, but little real impact.
As analyst Ashok Kumar said a couple of weeks ago, "I wouldn't buy AMD stock at any price." I concur. (Though I wouldn't buy Intel at its current price either).
One more thing ... I don't care if you say that P4 has a 100 MHz bus, but be consistent: either say that P4 has 100 MHz and Athlon has 133 MHz, or say that P4 has 400 MHz and Athlon has 266 MHz. WHen you say that P4 has 100 MHz and Athlon has 266 MHz, you are grossly misrepresenting the products.