Announcement

**Dinner** · February 10, 2003, 03:19

For some dumb reason I actually increased the size of the page file on my computer. Maybe I should just go back to the default setting?

**Asher** · February 10, 2003, 03:20

Originally posted by notyoueither
The page file will manage itself and is best left to do that.

Actually it's best to give it a fixed value. Set the minimum and maximum pagefile size to be the same, this prevents the horrible thrashing and slowdown when Windows needs to resize the pagefile.

**Urban Ranger** · February 10, 2003, 03:23

Originally posted by Asher
Nu-uh, most professionals use Microsoft Paint.

If most professionals use Photoshop 5.5, most professionals use older computers as well, which would mean its relevance in performance for modern processors is moot.

Why would you spend $650 on a highend CPU and use old, unoptimized Photoshop 5.5 with less features? Make-a no sense-a.

You're talking out of your arse, Glonkie. How many graphics professional do you know?

**Asher** · February 10, 2003, 03:24

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You're talking out of your arse, Glonkie. How many graphics professional do you know?

3D graphics? About a dozen.
2D graphics? Not many.

I don't really care how many you know, I want to know how you're going to back up your claim that most people will be buying $650 CPUs in $4000 systems and installing Photoshop 5.5 on them when Photoshop 7 is out and much faster and improves productivity and has some other new features...

**notyoueither** · February 10, 2003, 03:26

Originally posted by Asher

Actually it's best to give it a fixed value. Set the minimum and maximum pagefile size to be the same, this prevents the horrible thrashing and slowdown when Windows needs to resize the pagefile.

Why? Then you're stuck with it taking up space that you may never need.

Neither computer that I use here at home for personal use have ever 'thrashed'. They have more than enough RAM for what they do.

My view has been that it is usually better to let the software work the way the engineers and programers at MS intended it to. Guess what? My computers need very little (none) OS maintenance.

**Urban Ranger** · February 10, 2003, 03:29

Originally posted by Asher
Yeah, because being shown physical demonstrations to the press REALLY tells us it's coming out soon.

How long ago did we see a Hammer demo, Urban? Really now...

And how long ago did we we a Prescott demo?

Your logic just is plainly amusing.

Originally posted by Asher
Prescott is a modified version of Northwood on a 0.09 process. And Intel's 0.09 process's libraries have been complete for about a year now, they're almost done the 0.065 libs.

Libraries?

Originally posted by Asher
Prescott is just as much vapour as Athlon 64 is.

**Asher** · February 10, 2003, 03:29

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why? Then you're stuck with it taking up space that you may never need.

You shouldn't need to set the pagefile to more than 500MB, and if it's 500MB that's a very tiny portion of modern harddrives...

Neither computer that I use here at home for personal use have ever 'thrashed'. They have more than enough RAM for what they do.

My view has been that it is usually better to let the software work the way the engineers and programers at MS intended it to. Guess what? My computers need very little (none) OS maintenance.

MS intended Windows to work as a balance to most people. A resizable table is a balance between storage space and performance, having no table and having a fixed table size don't appeal to most users who probably don't have too much HD space to spare or RAM installed, but to people who do it's not much and there is performance improvements.

If you have a lot of RAM, it won't make that much difference. If you really use the pagefile a lot, it helps quite a bit in my experience. You'll also find most "tweak" sites recommend doing it as well.

**Asher** · February 10, 2003, 03:32

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
And how long ago did we we a Prescott demo?

Your logic just is plainly amusing.

Huh? That wasn't my logic at all. My logic is that showing a demonstration to the press means nothing. AMD demoed the Hammer running at an amazing 800MHz. The only reason they demoed it is because they NEEDED to show they had something working, their stock and their image took a severe beating last year.

Intel is in a entirely different boat. Do you remember when they demoed the Pentium 4 before they launched it?

Libraries?

You need process libraries from the fab plants ready before you can design the chips. Intel has successfully produced 90nm products, and has began sampling 65nm products. 90nm will be ready for mass production in the latter half of this year, the same time as Prescott coincidentally.

Seeing as Prescott is just an evolutionary chip, I don't think your implications that it hasn't been demoed warrant it being labeled as "vapourware" are valid.

By your logic the Pentium 4 was vapourware a month before it launches. You don't seem to understand the corporate differences between AMD and Intel -- AMD *needs* to demo their products to prove they have them, Intel doesn't need to -- people expect them to have them. It's AMD that has a very spotty history and jumps for joy every time a chip works.

And since the Athlon 64 isn't vapourware -- mind telling me what the confirmed launch speeds and system bus speeds will be? How about what kind of memory it'll interface with? Oh, that's right -- those aren't confirmed yet. There's just strong rumours...like Prescott.

**Urban Ranger** · February 10, 2003, 03:44

Originally posted by Asher
Huh? That wasn't my logic at all. My logic is that showing a demonstration to the press means nothing. AMD demoed the Hammer running at an amazing 800MHz. The only reason they demoed it is because they NEEDED to show they had something working, their stock and their image took a severe beating last year.

On the flip side, not showing it means you don't have it.

Originally posted by Asher
Intel is in a entirely different boat. Do you remember when they demoed the Pentium 4 before they launched it?

It appears that the situation was slightly different then. AMD didn't poise to ursurp the high end consumer market.

Originally posted by Asher
You need process libraries from the fab plants ready before you can design the chips. Intel has successfully produced 90nm products, and has began sampling 65nm products. 90nm will be ready for mass production in the latter half of this year, the same time as Prescott coincidentally.

The problem with the Clawhammer isn't the 90nm process, it is MOI. Since now they are making Bartons which are also MOI, I reckon AMD has licked the problem.

Originally posted by Asher
Seeing as Prescott is just an evolutionary chip, I don't think your implications that it hasn't been demoed warrant it being labeled as "vapourware" are valid.

Well, we won't have long to wait to find out.

**Asher** · February 10, 2003, 03:49

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
On the flip side, not showing it means you don't have it.

I'm trying to decipher if this was a poor attempt at humour or if you've lost your mind. Can you clarify please.

It appears that the situation was slightly different then. AMD didn't poise to ursurp the high end consumer market.

Uhh....what? At the time the Athlon was thoroughly spanking the Pentium III and the Pentium III was at its ceiling while the Athlon kept increasing. That was actually the HEIGHT of AMD's gain of marketshare taken from Intel...Intel still didn't demo the Pentium 4.

The problem with the Clawhammer isn't the 90nm process, it is MOI. Since now they are making Bartons which are also MOI, I reckon AMD has licked the problem.

Seeing as Clawhammers are on the 130nm process, I'd completely agree with you that the 90nm process isn't the Clawhammer's problem.

BTW, what on earth is MOI? Are you thinking of SOI?

There obviously is more to the problem than getting SOI to work, they delayed the thing until the end of the year. It was originally due out in the second half of 2002...then delayed to first half of 2003...now the second half of 2003. You really think this is all due to SOI?

**Rasbelin** · February 10, 2003, 04:31

As I already said on AoE2.com in the latest "Insights into computing" article, I'm not waiting to see any modestly prices AMD Athlon 64 systems for a while, but I do think the AMD Athlon XP (Barton) sounds like something worth to keep an eye on. Assumably my new desktop system will be Barton powered, unless I don't crack and wait until next year for an Athlon 64 PC.

**Dinner** · February 10, 2003, 04:37

Rasberry got a new avatar.

He's a beer drinking lizard?

**Rasbelin** · February 10, 2003, 04:48

It's Mozilla, and not just any common lizard.

pg · February 10, 2003, 04:59

i was a expecting a bit more. are they going to ramp it up to (much) higher speeds? maybe it'll have a bigger percentage preformance gain then. it was quite a bit faster in a few tests though - maybe it just comes down to optimization.

**MarkG** · February 10, 2003, 05:23

i've still to have an intel cpu on my computer....

Announcement

AMD's Barton is here (Athlon XP with 512KB cache, 3000+ rating)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment