Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Slightly pro-Intel reviews (Score 1) 152

by electrosoccertux (#47798161) Attached to: Anand Lal Shimpi Retires From AnandTech

They've actually been one of the fairest reviewers of AMD that I've seen. Consistently choosing non-Intel-optimized benchmarks. It's one of the reasons I kept going to them. I actually think it was a bit unfair to ditch the 640x480 game tests. In 4 years, I want to know how well my game is going to perform when the CPU can't keep up.

Comment: Re:accurate, thorough reporting? (Score 1) 152

by electrosoccertux (#47798151) Attached to: Anand Lal Shimpi Retires From AnandTech

Ok, I guess, as long as it is not an Apple product. If it is, then all that is thrown out of the window and the product is deemed "great" and worth the extra cost. This is most obvious in the smartphone sections. For example you can read the "android user on an iPhone 5S" article, and he lists all those important limitations of iOS that would definitely turn any Android user away, but says they are "temporary" and inexplicably concludes that iOS is not a worse experience. Similarly, supposedly they would test all important smartphone releases, however they review each iphone multiple times (seriously, check it out), then some popular Androids and that's it. They missed things like the N9, which was probably the best phone when it came out (as I had an iPhone, an Android and a N9 at the time), and don't try anything that could appear too price competitive to Apple devices (like Xiaomi). The Mac/Macbook etc reviews are similarly biased, the site seems to be in awe of Apple and everything they make. As an owner of a Mac Pro, a Mac Mini, 3 iPhones (all company provided) and the experience with them and all Apple products in our company, I am not similarly awed (I could write long stories here).

So, yeah, Anandtech, while it is not as good as it used to be, it is probably still (one of) the best (although for PSUs and an alternative take on GPUs you should look at HardOCP), but be wary of the Apple bias.

but it -is- worth the extra cost.

I don't care what you think, a $150 billion liquid cash savings account is proof that they're doing something right.
1. marketing
2. flawless design
3. fantastically controlled experience

I don't use one, probably never will, but I'm not an idiot with 1/4" thick bifocals that can't see what makes it a good phone for most of the population. Every time I touch one I'm happy to use it.

Comment: Re:Switched double speed half capacity, realistic? (Score 1) 316

by electrosoccertux (#47781579) Attached to: Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

Yes. I'm really handwaving something I vaguely remember, but the worst MLC drives fail at 1000 writes to a byte. It gets worse on lower nodes (20nm, quicker failure), but the nice thing is there is a little extra space added to compensate for that. Once you hit 3% failures, it's time for a new drive-- you'll begin losing the rest quickly.
There is wear leveling used but that's a touch problem to solve perfectly. I think 2000-3000 writes is about normal.

SLC drives much higher. I don't recall. You'd have to google.
Intel has the best flash controller by far however-- it's the only one that reliably survive random power failures without data corruption or loss.

Comment: Re:Switched double speed half capacity, realistic? (Score 1) 316

by electrosoccertux (#47763497) Attached to: Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

As you mention, 15k SAS drives are going to be rapidly undercut by SSDs. The price difference is no longer 10x or 20x when looking at cost/gigabyte, the price difference is now only 2-3x.

Pay 2x-3x the amount for a SSD of the same size as the 15k SAS, and you gain 50x improvement in your IOPS. For workloads where that matters, it's an easy choice to make now. As soon as you say something like "we'll short-stroke some 15k RPM SAS drives" - you should be considering enterprise level SSD instead. Less spindles needed, less power needed, and huge performance gains.

The only downside of SSDs is that write-endurance. A 600GB SSD can only handle about 120TB of writes over its lifespan (give or take 20-50% depending on the controller, technology, etc). The question is - are you really writing more then 60GB/day to the drive (in which case it will wear out in 5 years).

And more importantly... will you care if it wears out in 4-5 years? That you could handle the same workload using fewer spindles and less power likely pays for itself, including replacing the drives every 4-5 years.

I don't know what you're talking about. You can definitely write more than 120TB/600GB=240 times to the same bits.

Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?