Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Didn't read TFA yet... (Score 5, Interesting) 351

by myoparo (#36032332) Attached to: Former Senator Wants to Mine The Moon

but what's with the title of this story?

"Former Senator Wants to Mine the Moon"

Wouldn't it be more informative and important to mention, in the title, that he is one of the few people to actually walk on the moon?

Something like:

"Apollo Moonwalker Believes We Should Mine Moon"

Or, if you really want that Senator in there...

"Former Senator, having walked on the moon, now wants to mine it"

Comment: Re:Today, the complexity of numbering continues... (Score 1) 207

by myoparo (#36031832) Attached to: AMD Launches Fastest Phenom Yet, Phenom II X4 980

That's not too bad actually-- but why have a number that stands in for the clock speed instead of just having the clock speed itself? It makes comparing CPUs of different brands difficult because there is absolutely no correlation when it comes to the "stand-in" number.

At least when things were always done in mhz, it was relatively easy to "approximate" how fast two chips were compared to one another within the same family line or even amongst different manufacturers, provided you were at least somewhat familiar with the performance of the product lines in question.

Are the stand-in numbers of today just some fancy marketing gimmick or do they really have some deep-down meaning? I guess in the end it doesn't matter too as long as there are hardware review site to point people in the right direction. Still though, not having to look up everything all the time feels a bit nice.

Comment: Re:Today, the complexity of numbering continues... (Score 1) 207

by myoparo (#36030996) Attached to: AMD Launches Fastest Phenom Yet, Phenom II X4 980

I agree-- the numbering and naming schemes in use nowadays are ridiculous and sometimes hard to decipher. In fact, ever since they stopped posting the clockspeed next to the processor it's been confusing.

It's too bad we can't revert back to the old usage where it's just the processor name + clockspeed... with the addition of how many cores. Yes, it was never a perfect system (not all makes of processor have equal performance at a given frequency), but it sure as hell was better than how they do it now.

Comment: Re:Weird Benchmarks: chrysis at 800x600 resolution (Score 1) 207

by myoparo (#36030968) Attached to: AMD Launches Fastest Phenom Yet, Phenom II X4 980

For testing CPU in a video game, it's traditional to generally run the benchmark at a low resolution in order to help ensure that the CPU is the bottleneck and not the graphics card. Compared to the processor, more strain is placed upon the graphics card/gpu as the resolution is increased.

It has been this way for a very, very long time.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...