The article uses a bone stock FX-9590 against very heavily overclocked (around 150% of factory maximum specs) and water-cooled Intel setups, plus saddles the AMD chip with high RAM latencies even compared to the Intel chips using the same frequency of DDR3 RAM. I'm aware that the 9590 is essentially an FX-8370 that binned very well and got a clock boost from the factory because of it, but AMD has had these chips up to 8.7 GHz and HardOCP tested it at bone stock with poorly configured RAM. They could have at least given the AMD chip some overclocking, fancy cooling, and the same RAM latency figures. That would have been more apples-to-apples.

Here's a review that tested all the chips at stock settings with more typical RAM configurations. It's also the article from which the price-to-performance bar chart was derived (compared against Newegg retail prices) and is representative of what a typical system builder who is not taking the risks involved in overclocking can expect from the hardware. Here are a few more benchmarks of x264 which is what I cared about when buying a desktop CPU.

Until the stock performance numbers divided by the price come out higher on the Intel side, the AMD is the better value if you don't want to heavily overclock your chip and void your warranty. Intel has always had faster CPUs available than AMD, but they have always carried a significantly higher price tag. I'd prefer to have that money to buy something else like an SSD or more RAM. For other people, low power consumption or higher maximum performance may matter far more to them than the price tag, and I don't begrudge their choice to get Intel chips because that's what meets their needs.

A $2 screen guard protects your $200 phone investment. The guard isn't an investment, it's a cheap and disposable item whose only purpose is to minimize damage to the much more expensive product it's attached to. Of course a $200 lavish dinner is not an investment; if you've got $200 to blow on one meal, your threshold for what is a disposable item and what is not is higher than that of an average person.

An "investment" in colloquial usage within the context of retail goods is obtaining something that you need to remain working for a significant period of time. If something is relatively very cheap, the financial barrier to replacing it is low, thus if it breaks you just go get another one. If something is relatively expensive (let's say a $1200 computer which you had to save money for three months to afford) then you can't replace it easily if it breaks, so you purchase carefully and with greater importance placed on long term reliability. That's the only reason the purchase of a consumer good that will only ever depreciate in market value is called "an investment." Contrary to your assertions that "price based definition makes no sense, does not fit reality, and is totally stupid," it does in fact make perfect sense, is based entirely in reality, and is quite correct.

That 220W CPU beats most of Intel's high-end consumer grade offerings in everything but finding prime numbers and pi digits once you start dividing the real-world performance numbers by the cost of the chip. If you absolutely need to get maximum performance from a single die (in which case you're probably looking at server processors anyway), the massive price premium of Intel chips may be worth it, but the 220W AMD chip is a much better deal. I constantly read arguments stating that Intel is better than AMD because of their superior processes and lower power consumption. While impressive and certainly helpful if you're looking for a low-wattage CPU for a laptop or tablet (I chose a ULV i3 for my laptop), on a desktop I just want to process some video and crank some data through 7-Zip, and AMD's offering costs way less while offering the same effective performance. https://nctritech.files.wordpr...

I would like to sign up to your mailing list for more information on this subject.

Anything that's over $1000 is an investment. Hell, anything over $100 is probably an investment. My phone was $199; I consider it to be an investment, and I've had it for almost two years. $200 laser printer? Investment. Now the $45 Raspberry Pi? That's not an investment, that's a toy, and it is priced accordingly.

A good engineer would offer to build them one that goes to 12.

I use a version number in the classic (and very useful) major.minor.revision scheme, but I also use a chronologically sortable date code to the right of it. Best of both worlds. There's no reason to be limited to "date codes that don't say when you break stuff" or "version numbers that seem arbitrary." When the programs are started, they emit "Program that Does Stuff to Your Cookies 3.4.15 (2014-11-22)" and even if the version number doesn't ring a bell, the date code tells me "that's the day you accidentally typed a backtick and divided by zero."

Thank you for this post. You said it better than I think I could have, and didn't have to put anyone down or insult them in the process. /thread

Having seen this passive-aggressive horseshit so many times in the past, this post made me genuinely laugh out loud. I never understood what people who say "I won't visit anymore!" thought was going to change. People are, by default, in the ignored background until they speak up.

I understand where you were/are coming from now. Thanks.

There is no need to be rude or presumptive about my level of education. I shall explain what I meant in more depth to clear up any misunderstandings.

OP said: "So if you can spy on the traffic from the user to the tor entry node, and can spy on the traffic leaving the tor exit node at the same time... then you can tell that the traffic you saw going to the entry node is linked to the traffic leaving the exit node"

You said: "If you can correlate the server-->exit node flow to a specific entry node-->client flow, you've just identified the client outside of Tor."

Distinction Without a Difference - The assertion that a position is different from another position based on the language when, in fact, both positions are exactly the same -- at least in practice or practical terms.

Your provided links show that "packet sniffing" and "traffic flow analysis" are not different concepts in practice. The difference is in how the collected data is analyzed or for what purpose. For the purposes of this discussion where analysis of collected packets is for identical purposes, this is also a distinction without a difference. "A packet analyzer...is a computer program or a piece of computer hardware that can intercept and log traffic passing over a digital network or part of a network." "NetFlow is a feature that was introduced on Cisco routers that provides the ability to collect IP network traffic as it enters or exits an interface."

If you feel I have misinterpreted your statements, I would appreciate additional feedback.

Go to the URL bar and hit enter. It's blocking access because of the HTTP referrer.

It seems to me that you just said the same thing as the parent post.

I can't concede that because I have been presented no evidence of that. If we're seriously going to go down this path of discussing the economic damage of air pollution, let's talk about some of the positive aspects of air pollution as well, and how they weigh against the negatives...