Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Pluto: Kick me all you want, but ... I'll be ba (Score 1) 179

Oh, you actually want a real rule? Then how about any large body that directly orbits a sun? Now, define large: diameter, atmospheric pressure (Do we call it a planet if it doesn't have an atmosphere?) "weight", mass, temperature, internal composition, a definable surface or what-not AND remember to define exactly what a sun is and we're done.

All (non-accelerating) reference frames are equally valid. The sun orbits Earth just as much as Earth orbits the sun. Barycenters and whatnot.

Comment Re:And what are the other terms? (Score 1, Flamebait) 179

And what do you call things that orbit barycenters, like all things do?
This is what happens when eggheads aren't put to task building weapons for war and aren't bullied enough - they lose all discipline and just faff about willy-nilly.

As an egghead myself, FUCK YOU OTHER GUYS! Stop senselessly changing existing definitions and creating MORE ambiguity! You're ignoring basic principles of your field!

Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 179

Who said anything about dogma, you ass clown? Words have definitions and wantonly changing them means every written use of the word now needs to be dtae checked to determine which version of the definition was intended. It's the same with the "kibibyte" horseshit. STOP CHANGING THINGS FOR NO REASON.

The definition of "planet" was, is, and always will be arbitrary. They've been obsessed with "correcting" an arbitrary definition for about a decade now, and they show no fucking signs of stopping. Have we have always been at war with Eurasia?

Comment Re:we've been stuck at 4 core for too long (Score 1) 263

The bulldozer-series "modules" were like conjoined twins. They were mostly separate cores, but shared one of certain pieces between them.
How well this performed depended on your workload. 256-bit fp would perform as if it were a 4-core, integer would perform as if it were an 8-core.
They are far more like 2 complete cores than SMT (Intel's Hyper-Threading, and now AMD's ThreadRipper) are.

Comment Re:I don't think many apps use multi core (Score 1) 263

And besides Ashes of the Singularity I can't think of any that use more that four. Heck, Far Cry 3 only needed four cores because the devs bound to core 3 by mistake. There was a fan patch that forced it to bind to core two and got it running on dual cores. Multi core programing is dammed hard. It hasn't been worth it except for a handful of apps like video encoders...

Did it run on the 3 core Phenoms?

Comment Re:FINALLY! (Score 2) 263

Beware the hype train - And this is a hype train of the strongest degree. We're approaching No Man's Sky levels of hype here.

Keep in mind this is a soft launch. No launch silicon in reviewers hands.No objective reviews. Only "benchmarks" that came from AMD, which will always paint their product in a good light.

Intel isn't "stagnating" - They're responding to market forces. You really have not needed a faster CPU since the launch of Sandy bridge. What the market wants is more features, lower power. That is what Intel has been focusing on and delivering pretty well.

Lastly, remember that single thread performance is still king in the desktop space. Lots of cores are great for servers and some applications - But for user facing applications (Including games) the most heavily weighted cpu performance bottleneck is the top speed of your core(s). - Multi-threaded programming is hard and there is no magical compiler switch or library that will suddenly make lots of slow cores = One fast core. (For most applications)

We all want AMD to give Intel some competition and to push prices down.. But don't hold your breath until reviewers have shipping parts in their hands.

Reviewers have parts. Parts are up for preorder. Parts are going to be available worldwide on the same date. All signs point to it not being a "soft launch" or a "paper launch". We've seen photos over the past few weeks of people receiving trays of parts. Ryzen looks like it'll be out in volume.

The AMD-provided benchmarks are objective. They're showing multithreaded performance in a highly-multithreaded workload. They also show one single-threaded benchmark. Yes, the R7 1800X will lose out in single threaded performance against clock-for-clock Kaby Lake and Skylake parts.

Gamers should look at the Kaby Lake 7700k and the Ryzen 1700X.
People with highly-multithreaded workloads should look at the Skylake 6900k and 6850k, and the Ryzen 1800X and 1700X.
People concerned mainly with single-threaded performance shouldn't be looking at any recent part from anybody. For most people, the newer fab processes are simply too tight to allow for clocks high enough to justify replacing shit like the Sandybridge CPUs that have been running at 4.5 GHz - 4.8 GHz for 6 years.

Intel hasn't been doing SHIT for the desktop CPU market for the past 3 years. Look at http://ark.intel.com/#@Process.... There are a total of 16 SKUs in the i7/extreme class in the last 3 years of the Core products across gens 5-7. 4th gen i7 alone had about triple the number of SKUs. Today Intel shits out a few desktop SKUs and abandons the platform. Kaby lake doesn't even have its full stack out and they're already telling people to wait for Cannon Lake because the value proposition of Kaby Lake or Skylake vs Ryzen is a joke.

Slashdot Top Deals

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca