What is Digg?97 Comments
- kajoob, on 10/12/2007, -21/+198And what will these PC's be screaming?
"Arghhhhh! Get this Vista off of me!!!" - Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -6/+144"computers faster and cooler than ever before"
In other news, the Sun is expected to rise in the East tomorrow and gravity will likely function as normal.
Why is this news? Computers are going to be faster? well... no *****. - MyBigRed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+56just wait till your father get's home...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+54"All hype and no substance."
Yeah, it could almost be some lameass mac announcement right? - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19just wait till 2008
- Buddhist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Just wait till 2009.
- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Get the fark off my lawn!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Booooring.
How about the industry come up with some laptop standard so we can build our own portable machines instead of spending $2000 on overpriced *****?
That'd be a revolution right there. - Suits, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Flash memory's efficiency could also increase laptop battery life and shave time off the "very agonizing seconds" that pass as PCs awake from hibernation mode..."
Sounds good. As far as PC's are concerned, the only technologies I'm really concerned with is better battery life and faster internet connections at cheaper prices. Those two fields always seem to take the slow lane when it comes to latest and greatest. Give me twenty solid hours of battery life and faster net over DirectX 20 and Quadruple Core whatever. - cynicist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8lol what? You can already get quad-core processors for the PC.
- millerbrad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9What the hell is wrong with you?
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+864-bit will not automatically offer great speed increases. It is task dependent. Unless the data is 64-bit the processor will have empty registers. Simple data moves will benefit for they can squeeze 2 32bit pieces into the processor and move the data to where ever. However, ascii or unicode going to 64 bit offers little benefit, so word processors will still be a clock rate dependent.
Multiple cores have a limit where the overhead becomes more of a burden than the benefit of the extra cores. The best use of the cores are games designed to use them. I would like to see firewalls and Antivirus software dumped off to another processor though. Then, the user could have a dedicated processor. That would be great, but I do not think that functionality comes out of the box. Software will need to be designed for it. Dual processors are tough enough, moving to quad or dual quad it going to push most OSs and software developers to the limit. - sid0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No. Random access latency in flash drives < random access latency in hard disks. Think about the movement of the head.
Sequential's the opposite however. - aonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@rompom7:
Intel did make 64bit processors like AMD's shortly after..
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1736&page=2 - mtappenden, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@zybch
You flaming Jap's eye! The clock speed went down, the chips were faster. ***** hell, some people reallyh annoy me. - z23rdhsuan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5one of the reasons for moving towards many cores on the same die is that it makes better use of less power.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Unless we switch to nuclear.
- RHollister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@rompom
your kidding right? just because it isn't Core Duo 64 doesnt mean its not 64 bit - TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6* > an0nym0us
- TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@zybch
While that is true about coding for the PS3 is very tricky and hard. You have to remember that Sony have supplied ***** tools. Developers seem happy with the Xbox360's triple core configuration.
Developers haven't really coded for SMP before because there was never a processor (except for server based computers) that could take advantage of it. But now it's finally happening, I would expect things to change over the next 3 years! :) - uhhhh, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15All hype and no substance.
- Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Read the article and not just the description before you flame."
I have. I have read this same article every year for years.
"Now thanks to widget X and gadget Y PCs will be faster than ever before!" - briankealer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I guess the computer I got a few months ago for $2,200 will be obsolete in the Year 2007?
(Joke, laugh) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The problem, as has been shown with the PS3, is that coding for a large number of CPU cores is a LOT trickier than for just a single or dual core CPU. This can be seen from the results of those who upped their mac pros to dual quad core chips. Theoretical power went through the roof, but actually harnessing it efficiently is just too damn difficult in the majority of situations.
Sure, windows/OSX can do a lot of thread assignment to however many cores are present, but nothing beats an application that has been coded from the ground up to make use of more than one core.
From what little info is currently available, Intel has its might set on cramming as many cores as possible onto their chips, whereas AMD seem to be moving towards just a couple of general purpose cores surrounded by a cloud of dedicated cores, each performing different things (much like the old math co-processors of yesteryear). If coding for multiple cores remains as tricky as it is today, AMDs solution would seem to have the edge right now, especially as they are going to be integrating many GPU features into their CPUs. - Evil-Dragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not true, you can change your power settings to use Minimal Power Settings to down clock your processor speeds to use less power. Thus, less energy used when idle.
- Majin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5this is stupid pcs will just get newer software with more bloat to take advantage of these new features and u wont feel a thing ....
- tmcdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4really, there is nothing new about trying to shed some seconds of lag time off applications and processes.. (someone should do a digg story about how to use the computer you have more smartly as to NOT JUSTIFY BUYING A NEW ONE) but does it really justify bringing out the c-notes just to shed a few seconds? Hell no.
i'm still rather happy with an a64 x3200+ system w/ 250gb hard drive.. in terms of processor power, only most highly overclocked mult-core system would even dare to double the benchmarks of this SINGLE CORE system..for a pretty penny, might I add.. the only thing I want to see screaming in 2007 are the MASSIVE PRICE CUTS-- and don't think you can price gouge on COMPUTER MEMORY(or graphics cards for that matter) while cutting chip prices.. we won't take the bait anymore..!! - AngelBunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I thought flash memory had a very small limited number of reads and writes in its life time then it dies and that is why using flash memory to constantly transfer data is a no no. If this was possible like the article says then I would have used a thumb drive as my page file already.
- exodii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3'next-gen pc'
Is it Vista or the '2007' that will make them next-gen?
lol - 2shae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What will you do with all that extra power?....go to digg.com 4 times as fast XD
BTW this shock me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opeklylLWDo
The iMac is really really fast - sid0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Flash memory isn't THAT limited. Microsoft's using it as a cache in Vista (ReadyBoost). Flash memory seems to have low *random access* latencies (i.e. load times) -- much lower than hard disks.
(BTW cache != pagefile, and your data won't be lost if you suddenly unplug the drive while it has readyboost on.) - AngelBunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4sid0 I'm curious. I don't know much under the subject, so I looked a bit of it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Limitations
Wikipedia says at least 1 million programming cycles. How long do you think using flash memory in the form of a type of secondary ram for the OS would it take to hit 1 million?
Is that a year or 10 years? I don't know if I trust flash memory enough, if I know it is going to fail using it like that within a short period of time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@sid0: yes, but Random Access latency of an eprom buffer on a common hard disk < then the same buffer made with a flash memory. That's what the article was talking about. indeed, sequential access is even more disatrous.
- jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3vista will require them to be.
- central183, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ckufggid
Blocked for dumbing down the conversation and using all caps. Bye bye now. - sworoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You do realize those are Intel chips, right? There are quad-core PC's as well....... Mac offers nothing PC's don't, unless we're talking about iPods. Everything else Apple has now is basically PC hardware. Or maybe it's just me?
- paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Managore:
If I can build a laptop please point me to the website that I can buy the components from. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I said ***BEFORE*** last year (when the intel core chips came out) you retarded *****!!
Prior to that there was a pretty big swing towards lower powered chips like the pentium M in consumer level notebooks and away from the 3Ghz ones that were to be found more in desktop replacement systems with high price tags! - shank2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Have you even seen the performance/watt comparisons for the new core 2 duos and quads?! They blow away everything out there. If anything moving to a Core2 duo or quad is producing LESS CO2 for the same amount of processing power, NOT more! Here, I will make it simple for you. If Processor A uses 100 watts and takes 1 hour to complete a given task, and Processor B uses 100 watts and takes 10 minutes to complete the same task... hmmm which processor produces less CO2 for a given task? When idle the cores use a lot less energy, so running word will not use much more energy if any compared to previous gen single core processors.
You want to complain about something, rather than complain about computers using too much energy and causing pollution why don't you complain about something that really would make a difference like the fact that lawn mowers, gas weed eaters, gas leaf blowers running for 1 hour are equivalent to a car running for 13 hours or 850 miles in terms of pollution emitted. 500 lawn mowers are equivalent to 20,000 cars on the road, and those are CONSERVATIVE estimates. There are so many worse issues with the world than how much energy computers use. SHEESH! Damn hippies, get your priorities straight!
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/18/MNGME34DPG1.DTL
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/cnty/bos/sup4/initiatives/i000711-pollution.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-dembo/al-gore-you-had-better-g_b_25842.html - bubisparks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We use Compact Flash as hard drives in our industrial PC's running Linux or NT4. They've run for over 5 years and I've yet to see one fall over....
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm gona be that bully at school that walks up to people's vista computers and pulls out their Ready Boost flash drives, then laugh as their MS Word document becomes laggy and choppy because they were running iTunes for to long.
- nyx210, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't the constant read/write cycles ***** up the flash disk?
- zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow.. 159 of Mac users read this story.. :)
- orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why is this news? Computers are going to be faster? well... no *****."
The news is in the details, which maybe you don't find interesting, but many others do. - orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Waits for,"Its not Linux its the Developers."..."
ROFL!!! That is exactly what they would say too!!! Its always someone else's fault. - thund3rstruck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3exactly... what a stupid thing to say. Its strange because I actually boot more into my Vista OS than my Kubuntu 6.10 laptop install because it boots so much faster, remembers my wireless settings (ESSID), doesn't overheat, and actually has sound volume that can be heard!
By saying that installing windows depreciates the value of a computer is like saying that Dodge vehicles are terrible based on their manufacturing standards in the 80's! Get with the times man! - Grimboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why would you want to? You can already give processes a priority. The cpu/core management in the os is more intelligent than you anyway.
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The entire point of Intel's speech about their multi-core power efficiency was that they can hypothetically turn off extra cores or even certain parts of a single core when you're not using it. That's generally a good thing.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21mil isn't a lot at all. Especially if you're going to be using filters in video/photo editing apps which perform the same instruction on multiple data thingies.
However I thought it was higher than 1 million. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I know i got a usb memory stick 4 years ago, hardly used, and some sectors died on me. Maybe the technology got better but it really sucks when portions of your flash memory goes dead.
-
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is