New computer *gloat, gloat*

[Asher]

I'd much rather have HyperThreading than extra directly addressable registers.

Don't forget that P4s and Athlon 64s have similar number of registers, x86-64 just exposes more directly to the software, while P4s use them automatically behind the scenes.

[Thue]

More registers are still an advantage. They cut down on the register juggling the compiler would otherwise have to do. This cuts down on the number of instructions executed, the code size, and the memory accesses. That is better than internal registers.

But yes, hyperthreading is cool; I am surpriced that it only gives a 15% speed improvement. I would have expected (without too much knowledge to base it on) a good implementation to easily give at least 50% extra.

Regardless; I will be not be buying a new computer untill after the Athlon64 is out. There must surely be price cuts comming...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If I were PH, I'd go for an Ultra320 SCSI RAID.

OK then, I'll PM you my account details so you can give me the money to pay for it

Well yeah, I do play games on my computer, and PCs are one of my hobbies...I am generally quite frugal with money, this is one of my extravagancies So yes, boys and toys if you will

[Asmodean]

Re: Re: New computer *gloat, gloat*

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I'll see your piddly, pathetic GeForceFX 5900 and raise you a http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildca...cat VP990 Pro.

You'll see his piddly, pathetic GeForce FX 5900, and raise him a......page error

Asmodean

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
1) Athlon 64 is entering very restricted production in 2003 (something along the lines of 300,000 CPUs TOTAL, before Dec 31st), before cranking it up with the 90nm Athlon 64s in 2004 to the millions. Hardly a threat to Intel.

Sure, AMD wants to reserve production facilities for Opteron. Since Opteron is not exactly selling like hotcakes, nothing prevents them from switching production in their new fab to AMD 64.

Originally posted by Asher
2) Athlon 64's preliminary benchmarks put it on par with a 6-month old Pentium 4 in 32-bit speed.

Originally posted by Asher
3) Intel's pricing roadmap, publically available agrees with me.

That's right, like Intel hasn't done any surprise price slashes before.

Originally posted by Asher
So maybe I do know what's in store, huh? It not only makes sense logically and economically, it makes sense because Intel has had their pricing roadmaps public for that time period.

Your logic is as sound as a dried and twisted twig.

Originally posted by Asher
BULL****.
64-bit code takes more memory, which takes more cache, which takes more memory, which takes more memory bandwidth. A 64-bit CPU is not necessarily faster than a 32-bit CPU, until you use the special features of a 64-bit CPU.

What on earth are you talking about? This does not seem like any sort of counter to my argument, at all.

Originally posted by Asher
Even a novice computer science student would know that MHz != speed, and 64-bit is not always faster than 32-bit.

Preliminary testing shows that a 1.8GHz runs 32-bit legacy applications faster than P4 3.0C. Your point here is?

Originally posted by Asher
This right here shows your pathetic qualifications to talk about computer hardware.

Poor showing, Glonkie. All hot air and no substance.

Originally posted by Asher
Are you really this dumb?
I said compare it to the Centrino. Athlon 64 = modified Athlon = 100+ errata.
Centrino = new core and design = 4 errata, all eliminated before production.

My point was, of course, your comparison had failed.

If you couldn't figure it out, you really should look for a career in some other field, like basket weaving.

[FrustratedPoet]

Re: New computer *gloat, gloat*

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I was feeling rich

*s*******

That's your name that is.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Thue
But yes, hyperthreading is cool; I am surpriced that it only gives a 15% speed improvement. I would have expected (without too much knowledge to base it on) a good implementation to easily give at least 50% extra.

Why? Hyperthreading is overly hyped. Unless you have applications specifically written to take advantage of parallel processing, hyperthreading hardly helps at all.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sure, AMD wants to reserve production facilities for Opteron. Since Opteron is not exactly selling like hotcakes, nothing prevents them from switching production in their new fab to AMD 64.



That's right, like Intel hasn't done any surprise price slashes before.

Your logic is as sound as a dried and twisted twig.

Do you understand how weak this is?

1) You just admitted Athlon 64 will be produced in small quantities this year. AMD's marketshare is rather pathetic, and even now Intel's prices are very competitive with AMD's, and Intel's pricing roadmap doesn't have a pricecut til late October. But you're saying this could all change pretty quickly -- and why would it? There's no point, the Athlon 64, at least in 2003, is nowhere near to being a treat to Intel when it's going to be quite pricey. The Athlon 64 FXs aren't going to be out til 2004, anyway.

What on earth are you talking about? This does not seem like any sort of counter to my argument, at all.

You said a 64-bit processor is faster than a 32-bit processor for 32-bit code. That's patently wrong, stupid, and just laughable.

Preliminary testing shows that a 1.8GHz runs 32-bit legacy applications faster than P4 3.0C. Your point here is?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64.html

Athlon 64 2800+ vs Pentium 4 2.8GHz










I think my point is made. The Athlon 64 isn't really even competitive with the Northwood Pentium 4s, let alone Prescott. Intel's not worrying about the Athlon 64 for 2003, it's in limited production and the performance is rather ****e. The Athlon 64 FX may change that, but that's in 2004.

Poor showing, Glonkie. All hot air and no substance.

It's the other way around, I provided three points which are based in reality. You simply said "yeah, but that could change!" then said my posting is all hot air and no substance.

If you couldn't figure it out, you really should look for a career in some other field, like basket weaving.

Speak for yourself man, this is the latest in a long string of computer threads where it looks like you've regressed in knowledge substantially.

Why? Hyperthreading is overly hyped. Unless you have applications specifically written to take advantage of parallel processing, hyperthreading hardly helps at all.

Or unless you ever multitask, which I'm sure most people do.
Not to mention how more and more games are being HT-optimized or at least written for SMP.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Well bear in mind that PCs are a bit of a hobby for me, and I have been doing a lot of Access/Excel work lately...the muscle power is handy (of the CPU, not the card before anyone decides to be pedantic). And hence why I want a big monitor...

Just curious - what are you doing in excel that the older PC wont do or does too slowly?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

No, the price cuts on the P4s won't come until a week or so before the P5 launch on October 26th.

I note Dell selling a P4 2.2. Ghz, for only $500 US, including monitor. Im tempted.

Of course you serious types wouldnt take only 2.2 GHz, right? And only 256MB RAM? (though it would be cheap to go out and get another 256MB, I suppose) And of course you guys wouldnt buy from Dell, right?

[Asher]

I'd buy from Dell if I was someone who relied on Dell's warranty and tech support.

Personally I'd never really use tech support, so I build my own.

And I wouldn't get a 2.2GHz and 256MB RAM (the 384MB I have now on my desktop isn't coming close to cutting it). I'm getting a 3.4GHz Pentium 5 w/ 1024MB of RAM.

Though I'll actually use it, not only for Half-Life 2 and DOOM 3, but for schoolwork (development, compiling, etc) aren't 3D rendering as a hobby.

[Provost Harrison]

Well 256Mb on a modern system is just incredibly tight considering how much memory costs and an unnecessary bottleneck, and you may as well get a faster processor up to a point when you get diminishing returns...

And well, I have some staggeringly large excel files, and access databases for my work. There is one excel workbook I have on here which has 4 sheets, each with 6000-10000 rows (and no shortage of columns either). You need something pretty nifty to start dealing with that kind of data, especially with complex queries...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well 256Mb on a modern system is just incredibly tight considering how much memory costs and an unnecessary bottleneck, and you may as well get a faster processor up to a point when you get diminishing returns...

Well it seems like id have to spend 200 to 250 US to get a significantly better system, at least from Dell. That seems like diminishing returns for me.

Indeed a spoke to a friend the other day who suggested getting a used/refurbished PC. His P3 733(?) (I assume 128MB) does everything he needs, he says. (He doesnt do much gaming, but then P3 with 128 would enable to buy enough games to give me years of gaming) They run about $300 US, I think. Thats why i was curious about what your PC was limiting you on.

I once did a spreadsheet that was so big it seriously challenged my PC - but that was over 8 years ago, and that was a laptop - i actually would leave the PC on while i went to dinner or wherever, to allow the sheet time to save and close - nice that it was on a laptop)
Not likely to need to do that on my home PC though.

[MattH]

256 IS the minimum to run smothly. You can buy a cheaper one from dell, just order $27 dollars worth of compatible ram from newegg.com (that's how much 256MB DDR costs).

I'm running Win XP on a PIII and wouldn't recomend it... you get tired of the lag real fast.