Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Just bought two of these cards (Score 1) 95

by Kjella (#48911885) Attached to: NVIDIA GTX 970 Specifications Corrected, Memory Pools Explained

Thats pretty much irrelevant. GPU ram isn't used that way at all. Its used to hold the 3D geometry, bitmaps, bump maps etc of assets and other processing data which is largely if not completely independent of screen resolution/no.of screens.

For real-time rendering of a simulated environment - that is, gaming - textures are generally stored as mipmaps so the more pixels it's going to take up on the screen, the more detailed version of the texture is used and thus the memory use rises accordingly through the entire pipeline. It's pretty easy to see if you keep resolution or texture quality constant and vary the other. If you're doing some other kind of simulation that might not hold, but for gaming what you said is pretty much false.

Comment: Re:Consumers? No just whiny fanboys (Score 1) 95

by Kjella (#48911781) Attached to: NVIDIA GTX 970 Specifications Corrected, Memory Pools Explained

Hey, I'm still happy about my purchase but when I bought it I looked at the specs and thought: Hmm, they've disabled 3/16ths of the shaders, but it has the same ROPs, same cache, same RAM... if I buy two for SLI it should perform like the GTX 980 except for having 2x13 = 26 shader blocks instead of 16/32 for a single/double 980. Now I find out that's just not true, it has 0.5 GB quasi-RAM it can't access at the listed memory bandwidth, I feel I got very legitimate reason to feel cheated.

Apparently the ROP/cache isn't a big deal at it makes sense to use 7/8th = 14/16th to serve 13/16th the shaders, if only they'd listed the specs right. But gaming at 3840x2160 with SLI there's a fair chance I could run into a game now or in the future that wants to use all 4GB where it'll either act like a 3.5GB card or drop the framerate significantly underperforming compared to the GTX 980, I don't think that's just theoretical.

I'd probably still be quite cool with a 3.5GB card with 0.5GB of "last resort" memory that's still faster/lower latency than system memory. But they were in error and have admitted they were in error, I think that goes a little beyond "We said we're sorry" Paying some kind of compensation for falsely promised functionality would not be unreasonable (or swapping my GTX 970s with a 8-channel memory version, but I guess that's overkill). I'd be very surprised if there isn't a class action lawsuit very soon.

Comment: Re:The solution is obvious (Score 1) 485

I don't understand the point of buying a non-Google Android device.

I've looked at them, and I just never saw anything that made me think "that's clearly so much better and cheaper than the Google device that I should be reliant on the manufacturer and carrier to support it."

When my Nexus 4 went tits up I bought a Moto G 2014. It's got an SD slot, it's got KitKat (now) and it's unlockable/rootable. Indeed, unlocked and rooted. It was under $200 with a ringke slim backing added, from Amazon. That was pretty compelling. I miss the GB of RAM but nothing else.

Comment: Re:BUT - will it auto-calculate folder sizes? (Score 1) 324

by drinkypoo (#48907897) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

It's too slow to be useful

SSD

and will utterly kill network drives.

Seems like Microsoft can address this one of two ways. One, just don't do it to network drives, the OS knows which those are. Two, by now they ought to have been able to implement this in SMB or whatever it is called now, where the client just asks the server for the size of the directory so it doesn't have to do all the calls manually. The server can prioritize that stuff last.

Comment: Re:Oh please, you act as if they're computers (Score 1) 72

by drinkypoo (#48907823) Attached to: Modular Smartphones Could Be Reused As Computer Clusters

A modern smart phone can barely compete with a desktop PC from 2000 (CPU wise anyway, smartphones do have much better GPU's).

Gee, is that all? I remember doing quite a lot on my desktop in 2000.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if a 1GHz Pentium 3 could beat a dual core 2GHz ARM CPU. Sure the P3 would be chewing 30W and the ARM only 6.

I'm betting it would depend on which benchmark you were running.

Comment: Re:They better be damn sure we're not home... (Score 1) 369

Heads are also heavily protected. Have you never seen the gear SWAT teams, riot police, soldiers, etc. wear? You really think they walk around with their head exposed?

Since those guys are likely to be in full heavy body armor as well and humans need to see and breathe the face is still the weak spot, unless you got a high powered rifle or something. Not that you're going to win against a whole SWAT team anyway, but one lone nutcase who has you backed into a corner... I'd aim for the face.

Comment: Re: That's a nice democracy you have there... (Score 1, Insightful) 369

Which is a form of democracy...

In theory? Sure. In practice? Not so much. Oligarchy link is already provided on a comment very near to this one, but here 'tis again. Direct democracy or GTFO. For anyone who wants to cry "mob rule", quick quiz before anyone should give a shit what you think: 1) how many times in history has the electoral college disagreed with the popular vote? 2) what were the last two times that happened? The results should shut you the hell up, if you find the correct answers.

In countries where the people get to vote on bills, there may be democracy. I don't know, I don't live in one of those. In countries where more than two choices working for one master are presented, there may be democracy. I don't know, I don't live in one of those either. Here in the USA, we have two different colors of wolf arguing over one sheep.

Comment: Re:America is HUGE (Score 4, Insightful) 231

by drinkypoo (#48904519) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

Sometimes it's hilarious listening to those demanding changes in Federal, national standards in the US, who've clearly never travelled outside the coasts and/or packed, urban dorm living..

Here's the problem with that argument: even in cities where population is, most Americans still have crappy internet by modern standards. That's why you don't get to apply the "America is huge" argument to speeds, only to coverage. It's not surprising that many people who live in the sticks can't get cable or DSL, that happens because America is huge and our population is actually relatively distributed. But it is surprising that so many people who live in densely-packed regions still can't get even 25 Mbps, let alone the vastly higher speeds now available for a reasonable price in many nations which did not invent the internet.

Comment: Re:life in the U.S. (Score 3, Interesting) 231

by drinkypoo (#48904439) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

Competition and/or expanding access would go alot further to bettering the internet than increasing the broadband definition.

Yes, but the FCC can't really do that even if they want to, not by themselves. Raising the definition of 'broadband' (heh heh) is something they can do, hilariously enough.

The fastest upload speed I can get is 768k so I guess by the FCC's definition I'm not
on broadband. Even this is not a huge problem. The only reason I wish I could do faster uploads is so that I can do online backups
but that's probably a niche market.

I don't think it is. Think about all the Android phone users who have backup turned on, but only on Wi-Fi. They're out shooting videos and taking pictures on their phones, and then these files are getting the cloud backup treatment. I think people are going to get used to this sort of thing in general if they get a chance.

Comment: Re: life in the U.S. (Score 1) 231

by drinkypoo (#48904333) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

Even with that price tag though, they end their line at the corner he's on, there is no service for us.

I'm in that same boat. Within a bowshot or so, there's both cable and DSL. Where I am, I can get access to a WISP which [sometimes] gives me 6 Mbps for $60/mo, recently revised-without-notice from 5 Mbps for $50. As lousy as it is, DSL would be a better deal for me if it worked, but this is some heinously old and multiply-spliced copper where it wouldn't work well anyway.

Where there's a will, there's an Inheritance Tax.

Working...