What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 Movie -- Anime view!
funimation.com - Available now on DVD. The rebuild of the ground breaking anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.
208 Comments
- HairyGrapeNuts, on 02/19/2008, -4/+92Apple's New 3.0 GHz MacBook Pro!*
* = Substantial sperm lost if used on lap. - trotskyist, on 02/19/2008, -3/+85Awww.
It seems like just yesterday that we passed the last 3.0 GHz barrier. - jer2eydevil88, on 02/19/2008, -8/+63I like faster computers, who the hell doesn't but seriously Intel needs to get the message this time: No Rush! They can take their time because no one looks forward to a similar problem we had with Netburst where they brought out hotter chips just so they can break a GHZ barrier!
- Magnus150, on 02/19/2008, -0/+47Is this a bad thing?
What will happen if a woman uses it, will she have fried eggs? - inactive, on 02/19/2008, -5/+483GHz sounds fun, but until then, my 2.8GHz Dual Core should manage just fine, so Intel, please take your time and don't mess it up!
- BlackKnight6, on 02/19/2008, -0/+38I have always loved Intel, but I want AMD to bounce back so there is competition. That leads to faster CPU's, price cuts, innovation, etc.
- wTheOnew, on 02/19/2008, -6/+39or your computer just blows.
- subterfuge, on 02/19/2008, -4/+34HOLY. *****.
guys, did you read that? the processors are going to go FASTER THAN 3.0GHz! i thought they would always be stuck at 2.9GHz and below. boy, was i wrong! - scaaven2, on 02/19/2008, -5/+33i love amd, but they have really blown it lately. my next processor will be intel
- BlackKnight6, on 02/19/2008, -1/+29Intel didn't push their Netburst based CPU's to break Ghz barriers, they did it because AMD's CPU were putting up fierce competition. With how cool C2 is and dropping the die size down even further to reduce heat and power consumption, I don't see why they should slow down innovation...
- raptordrew, on 02/19/2008, -5/+32...these chips WILL be dual core, dummy.
- stormgren, on 02/19/2008, -0/+26It takes you three billionths of a second to get off?
No wonder you have no girlfriend. - sheerz, on 02/19/2008, -0/+25woah. sounds insane.
- HotGore, on 02/19/2008, -3/+26For those of us who use their computers for more then digg, we would like much faster CPUs.
Intel hurry the hell up! - ryan83189, on 02/19/2008, -0/+22From the people who made a "mobile" pentium 4.
- inactive, on 02/19/2008, -0/+22Flash.
- Magnus150, on 02/19/2008, -1/+22Commodore 64 apparently.
- marx2k, on 02/19/2008, -1/+20Ok, Why do I need a faster processor to browse the net at work?
- dizilbdog, on 02/19/2008, -4/+23I'm waiting for 6.9 Ghz that should be fast
- inactive, on 02/19/2008, -0/+18NEWSFLASH: Technology advances; processors are faster.
- 1jaxstate1, on 02/19/2008, -3/+21Blah we've been waiting on 3Ghz chips for notebooks for a long time now. I don't expect this to change. But how much better is a 3Ghz chip over say a dual core 2.8Ghz chip.
- glory, on 02/19/2008, -2/+19Shut up. Let Intel rush it to the market. I want faster cpu's for laptops.
- MacEnvy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+17Poached.
- TomFrost, on 02/19/2008, -1/+17Are you trying to troll? Let me give you the breakdown in case you're not: heat = wasted energy. Wasted energy = energy you could be using to power your computer, or otherwise keeping inside of your battery. And so, heat = ***** battery life. Not to mention a computer that requires more fans, to suck more power, which is louder, has a shorter life, is likely unstable, and has to be made physically larger. Completely aside from the fact that it makes your lap feel like it's on fire.
People worry about these things for a reason, sir. - badqat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+16You know you can run 'normal windows' on a MacBook, right?
- DannyTMurphy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+16dude, give it up...
- Combat247, on 02/19/2008, -2/+17Wonder what the GHz barrier on the core will be.
- snugglebear, on 02/19/2008, -0/+15Seriously. A friend of mine had one of those, it was so hot it was insane. It needed a MASSIVE fan to keep it at 60 celcius, it was insane. If you put it on your lap it felt as if someone took a blowtorch to your testicles. It was pure evil. I have to admit though, the core 2 duo mobile ones are pretty awesome cool and powerful.
- stoanhart, on 02/19/2008, -0/+14I arbitrarily concede.
- Protoss, on 02/19/2008, -0/+14Same here. The first computer I built was an AMD 2500+ and it rocked. I'm still rocking a A64 3200+ in my desktop, but when I build my next computer I think I am going to have to go with an Intel Core 2 Duo.
- burchie2, on 02/19/2008, -0/+14sounds great as long as power consumption doesn't become ridiculous.
- CharlesSaint, on 02/19/2008, -2/+16That's a lie and you know it!
- stoanhart, on 02/19/2008, -0/+13I'm going to arbitrarily say somewhere between 4.6 and 5.1 Ghz.
- inactive, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1345nm.
- m3mn0n, on 02/19/2008, -1/+14It seems like just yesterday that we passed the last 300 MHz barrier.
"Dude, I got a new PENTIUM 2!! YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT!!" - Combat247, on 02/19/2008, -1/+14Core 2 Sorry.
- stoanhart, on 02/19/2008, -1/+14>>Why do you care about heat?
Because not all CPU's run in a desktop. Because less heat means less fans means less noise. Because less heat means less energy means lower bills for "always on" computers.
>>You buy a cpu to run your computer with less wait time, what does heat have to do with the price of tea in china?
Not everyone does. And the answer to your question: nothing.
>>It's like everyone is a brainwashed parrot, running around talking about "heat" and "voltage".
>>The only thing you should care about a cpu is what it does, and how much it costs.
People do care about what it does. In particular, they care about how much heat is spews, and how much battery it consumes. Those are things a CPU does. As far as I can tell, only one person here is coming off as intelligent as a bird.
>>And the hertz of a cpu means absolutely nothing. Zero.
Wrong again! The hertz of a CPU do mean something. The amount of work a CPU can do in a second can (very roughly) be calculates as follows: (WorkPerCycle) x (CyclesPerSecond). So while it is true that hertz aren't the defining characteristic of a CPU anymore, they are far from meaningless. More hertz often mean faster FSB too, so more memory bandwidth.
But please, keep enlightening us with your opinion. - nbx909, on 02/19/2008, -1/+13With iBirthcontrol included
- PleaseJustDie, on 02/19/2008, -0/+12I think it would be better like "Breaking! New Intel chips to require 1.21 Gigawatts!" That way it more correctly correlates to the flux capacitor. And it isn't in all caps, which I, personally, do not think is cruise control for cool.
- dawgma, on 02/19/2008, -0/+12I will arbitrarily disagree with you.
- Aeaus, on 02/19/2008, -0/+12I sense great failure in the digg.
- sevenalive, on 02/19/2008, -0/+12iCan'tComeUpWithABetterName
- elmetald00d, on 02/19/2008, -4/+16Thank you sir. I now have to turn my screen off so I can thoroughly clean all the sprite off of it.
- EXreaction, on 02/19/2008, -0/+11Depends on efficiency...
If it is the same core, you probably wouldn't notice a difference at all. - mudkiller, on 02/19/2008, -0/+11Hell, it'd seem like just yesterday that we passed the 100Mhz barrier!
Dude, I got a Pentium! 16MB RAM! 486 WHAT? 4MB RAM?! That's right! :D - Rikushix, on 02/19/2008, -5/+16Dude, I have a HP Pavilion 9000 series, the first gen of notebooks running Vista...according to Microsoft's Vista-Compatibility app on their website, I'm not even supposed to be able to run Vista on my laptop. And it doesn't take anywhere near 2 - 3 seconds for me to open windows or menus. What are you running, exactly?
- Bologner, on 02/19/2008, -0/+10Sorry, it was a botched joke.
Bury away. - punkcat, on 02/19/2008, -1/+11some people have jobs though, you are forgetting about that demographic
- surfacewound, on 02/19/2008, -0/+10Pfft my Pentium started off with 32mb of RAM. Ballin'.
- KloroFormd, on 02/19/2008, -0/+9You've got the idea better than SwedishNinja it seems. A dual-core chip is quite similar to having 2 separate processors. To get maximum performance from them, you need at least 2 threads.
A 6GHz single core can process 1 thread at max speed. A dual-core can't process a single thread as fast, it'll just be like running on a single core 3GHz.
You can use 2 cores to do the same job, but only if the program you're running is coded for 2 or more threads. 2 chips running at 3GHz is referring to a frequency. It's nothing like 6GHz.
Here's a horrible analogy:
If your car has 2 fuel tanks using 2 seperate pumps filled with 91 octane, you don't refer to it as using like 182 octane-rated fuel. It's 2 tanks of 91. You can rapidly switch between the tanks (like a single thread tends to do on a dual-core in Windows), but it does nothing to benefit you. It's no different than running from a single tank. Add another engine and let both engines use their own pumps and tanks, and you're in business. 2 engines from one tank with one pump will likely starve the engines of fuel resulting in lower performance. Same thing happens when using 2 threads on a single core that require heavy CPU utilization. A dual-core handles this much better.
Holy ***** I'm on a stoned rambling spree. Did any of this make sense? -
Show 51 - 100 of 210 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is