Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Bone Saw (Score 1) 275

Oh no, I don't think we want to do that. You see I've done some math here and I estimate if we did that with the amount of hard vacuum that is in there, it would suck up all the air and we would all die.

I propose when someone wants to run for congress we give them this test.

  • How many people can we put on Guam before it tips over?
  • 2+2=?
  • How do you spell "banana?"

Comment Re: Storm in a glas of water (Score 1) 267

Why would we look strange at you for using edge? I went through your history for the past few months. Short of disliking silverlight, you seem to very much like windows. Why would we expect you not to like this?

Well I do like windows but I also like linux. I run windows on my home workstation because when because with what I do at home windows works better the. Mainly games.

I run linux, centos 6.7, on my server. It works best for that what I use it for. Basically a big ass file server.

I run fedora at work because I view it as the best OS to use when working in a linux environment.

Comment Re:I wont miss something I never used. (Score 2) 267

I don't understand why this is even in the core code. The core code should contain only the essentials to make the browser function. Anything else such as themes, adblockers, chat clients, and fucking social buttons should be downloadable add ins.

If you want a fast and sleek broswer just keep the core code. You want to customize the hell out of it go fo it,and enjoy your lumbering hippo.

Comment Re:Damnit (Score 1) 311

I'm sorry that you feel that way but I've been doing this for a very long time. I've had numerous AMD chips over the years and I can say only for that short span of period AMD chips have always trailed behind Intel in performance. That performance gap was only around 5% to 10% on average.

The last figures I ran put my old phenom II 965 at 3.4 ghz against a 3.2 Ghz I5 with 4 cores. The result was exactly what I expected. The AMD 965 inched out the i5 by a very small margin, about 3%, due to higher clock rate. I estimated at the time if I slowed the 965 down to 3.2Ghz it would fit nicely with in the standard model 5% to 10% gap.

We tested my FX-8150 at 3.6 ghz against a 3.6 ghz i7. I don't remember the model number of the i7. The performance gap stunned us. A 20% fo 40% gap on performance in the i7 favor.

AMD has made great chips before, and thier chips are still good. But you just can't compare them to what intel offers now in terms of performance.

Comment Re:The AMD chip (Score 1) 311

Yes. I did some quick research looking for that $7 VIA cpu. I didn't find it. What I did find was the specs for current VIA CPU's. From what I read they are worse than AMD. S

So the choice between cheap crap and a reliable working system? You see cost alone doesn't just always seal the deal. Spend the extra money and get quality.

Comment Re:Damnit (Score 2) 311

Ah yes, yepping of the disbeliever. We'll I guess I'm not. I guess the fact that my workstation is a fx-8150 and my linux box is a fx-8350. I have a A-5350 in my htpc and my old workstation is a Phenom II 965. The rig I build for my daughter is only a AMD 6300. I won't talk about the 9950, 9850, 1440XP, and the T'bird 950 before that. Yup your correct, I've never been a AMD fanboy.

Look, your little toy box is nice but if you want to run with the big dogs you best know what you're talking about. I'm glad it works for you but some of us don't live in denial. When I upgrade I plan to go Intel. I will give AMD a chance with its new platform but I'm expecting disappointment.

Comment Re:Question: Is this the CPU that's in XboxOne/PS4 (Score 2) 311

I don't see how this issue can affect PS-4 and Xbox One consoles. Both those are marketed with out disclosure to the public on how many cores their processors have. Most people that buy games consoles don't care about that as long as their a radical performance increase over their last console.

I doubt that ether microsoft or sony will have anything to say ether. Both their engineering teams crawled all over the cpu designs they where planning to put in the console. They didn't just point at a cpu and said that one is good. They knew exactly what they where putting into those consoles.

Comment Re:Damnit (Score 1) 311

Well, there was the Athlon - era where they were sweeping the floors with Intel

Those where glorious days, where they not? I remember the race to 1 ghz and AMD beat Intel to that mark. AMD didn't just inch ahead there ether, they rode Intel hard and put them away wet. Those where good days.

Then Intel caught up and stayed ahead most of the time but AMD was still able to maintain a competitive edge in price. The performance for a Intel chip vs AMD was about 5% to 10% in most areas but AMD's prices where a hundred or more dollars cheaper than Intel. For that much of a difference a 5% gap in performance didn't matter.

We still see that much of a price difference but the performance gap is like 40% or greater. That is not worth the discount of a AMD part. There there are other technological gaps like DDR4, USB3, and PCI 3.0 support.

I looked at what AM4 was bringing to the table next year in 2016. Problem is, everything its bringing Intel had out last year. I think things are looking pretty bleak for AMD in 2016.

Comment Re:Why did they buy based on "cores"? (Score 2) 311

99% of software out there is still single threaded. that makes a old pentium 4 single core running at 4GHZ will beat the hell out of a i7 3ghz 8 core processor brutally if that i7 has hyperthreading turned on essentially cutting the processor speeds in 1/2 to emulate more cores.

Truth. If you have been reading the design and theoretical papers about 20 years ago it was widely known the mhz race was going to come to an end in the 3-4 ghz range. An that is pretty much what has happened. I've not seen a real cpu in the field faster than 4 ghz. Most servers that I work with run at 2-3ghz. Sure you see some "gimmicks" that make cpu's run at 5+ ghz but would you truly put one of those 220W beasts in your desktop?

We have his the limits imposed by the laws of physics. The gate technology just can't switch any faster. It's impossible. We may see some other material like graphine or something in the future but we won't see the performance increase in CPU's that we saw in the late '90s and early 20's.

Fortunately, modern CPU's are extremely powerful. Not many people realize how powerful a 3.2 ghz quad core cpu is, or even a dual core. Fifteen years ago I made a prediction that 1.5 ghz dual core will be plenty for normal office work. So far my theory has proven to be true. In the office area there was a ramp up to the extremely fast quad core cpu's for general office work. But lately that trend has reversed. Around the offices that I have been in new hardware tends to consist of dual core 1.5 to 2.x ghz CPU's.

I guess what I'm saying people is get used to what you have because its not going to get much better or faster. Baring any radical advancement in technology like affordable quantum computers, 4 ghz is about it.

Comment Re:AMD vs Intel performance (Score 1) 311

Your observations on the AMD vs Intel performance gap seem to match my own observations.

I have a 3.6 ghz fx-8150 and my friend bought a Intel i7 also at 3.6 ghz. On most desktop operations you can't tell the difference. When we start operations like video encoding the difference in performance is staggering. On the average he gets over a 40% performance increase over my AMD system.

That is a hell of a performance gap.

Comment Re:Damnit (Score 2) 311

No, the better option is that AMD gets their shit together, never giving Intel full monopoly on the x86-market even for a bit.

Myself and a friend have been AMD fanboys for 20 years. I built my first system on AMD 133mhz '486. Since then he abandoned AMD on his last workstation build and went all Intel. I have a FX-8150 and a FX-8350 in my builds right now. He has given up on AMD and I'm not far behind. I'm looking at my next workstation build sometime in 2016. I'm not ready to completely abandon AMD. I'm gong to wait and see what the specs on the AM4 bring to the table but I expect to be disappointed.

A few months back we looked to see who might be interested in buying AMD and keeping as a whole. We didn't come up with any one. What we got was a list of people that might be interested in parts of AMD. Sony or Microsoft might buy their chip facilities since they do use AMD chips as the CPU/GPU in their consoles. AMD has a few patents that both Nvidia and Intel might be interested in picking up.

Realistically AMD is to far behind the technological curve in so many areas. Even looking at the specs to the new AM4 systems I can tell they are behind Intel in almost every aspect. AMD has always been behind Intel in the performance area for most of its life. But they where never so far behind that their lower prices didn't make up for. That is not true with the FX chips. The performance gap is not worth the lower cost.

Lets hope AMD gets their shit together. As I've said before. The fat lady hasn't sung yet on AMD but she is warming up in the bullpit. Lets hope that as she waddles up on stage AMD pulls a rabbit out of the hat and she falls off the stage into a tuba.

The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income and add ten percent.