Cheapest one being around $266, I would DEFINITELY wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
Printable View
Cheapest one being around $266, I would DEFINITELY wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
Do wait, everything available now is only improved old technology. If you need an upgrade, go on the cheap. They are now giving away the best out there if you know what to look for.
http://chuckbam.com/Posts/bloomfield-spec-sm.png
$284 is the opening/ I paid that for the Q6600. Sets of 3 DDR3 will be out. DDR3 at newegg cas 7 is getting cheaper every weekQuote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227309
If you wait a Little , you should be able to get a good board with 6 or 8 Phase power deign/ ICH10R from maybe Abit or MSI under 150 bucks. Asus probably more like $200 bucks.
maybe sell some old parts.
Sorry I posted so many times in a row.
for what it's worth, if you wanted to upgrade now, maybe go even lower. go with the 2x1gb ddr2 kits that are 20ar nowadays. pretty negligible, and you'd probably be able to even make money back by selling your old ddr1. then, for the cpu, either grab a e2180 or some other cheap e2xxx, or if you must, the e7200 is only $120. damned good deal. after some overclocking, it'd be damned impressive still. you won't be disappointed one bit, especially coming from an opteron 165 @ 3ghz. that'd let you wait it out.
For what it's worth, nehalem won't shatter the penryns, although certain things will obviously be vastly improved. In the long run, you'd have something that's still more than fast enough for today and tomorrow, and by tomorrow, nehalem and associated ddr3 prices will have plummeted.
All depends if you want to play the waiting game or buy now / soon. If you wanted to wait, you'd think it'd only be 6 months, but then it'd be a year, and by then, if you'd been patient enough, you'd be thinking "damn it, just another 6 months".
That should hold you over. But why not get a cheaper CPU and overclock a little? like an E7200? You can't use the 4gbs of ram in the P5Q? What does the P5Q/ P45 have over the P35 in the real world ? I have not read up on that chipset.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
I did see that Asus has one with 16-Phase power, wow!
aye I suppose 4gb ddr2 is cheap enough. but e7200 is definitely way worthier than the e8500. conroes and penryns dont really take a big plunge when they lose half their cache. the e7200's overclock quite well too.
I just was wondering why you could not use the memory you have now in your new board.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
Intel coming out with a new socket is a big deal. I would have an x48 this week if I thought it would be a real improvement. I want 4 cores and hyprthread. I want the memory controler on the CPU +++. I will go with the cheap Bloomfield. And (dumb I know) 12 GB of memory. (I fool with the OS some).
They will have a bunch of cheaper socket 1366 CPUs that will come out after the Bloomfield
I have not read a thing about an AMD CPU (or board) since they stopped being Intel pin compatible so I don't know what you have now.
I would just put together a good but cheap system and plan an upgrade in maybe a year.
The currant Intel technology is at a bargain right know. Correct me please if I am wrong, but if you stay with DDR2, what has been the improvements in the chipsets after the 965 other than a small memory improvement and maybe PCI-X 2.0.
You may not be able to Overclock a e8500 that much and the board you are looking at has all the OC features.
i think that's s939 so ddr1 ram
I'll take at least 12GB thank you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
OhQuote:
Originally Posted by ziddey
I would go with a cheaper CPU and overclocking board or a faster CPU and maybe an Intel board or something like a P35 Vanilla.
Just my -2 cents
non OC
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813121314
OC
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131277
I just looked these over fast as examples.
i had the same problem on my 939 board. a new bios solved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
btw, support for DDR3-1066 only? that means you have to oc how much to make DDR3-1600 work at its default clock?
266 -> 400.
Thats what I am doing on my E6600 now.
^^thats FSB though. with cpu multiplier 20x, QPI real clock speed should be 133 Mhz. memory speed then should be 133x20/2.5=1066 ; so for the DDR3-1600 it should be 200x20/2.5=1600 ; please correct me if i'm wrong
That is the way I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dexman
If that is the case, then it should probably be very easy to get to that speed?
at 200Mhz QPI you get 4GHz on cores. you could lower the cpu multiplier but then the memory speed would drop too. so who knows, i think 4GHz should be doable. what i don't get is why they dont make support for higher memory speeds. whats stopping them from supporting DDR3-1600 or 2000 out of the box? any ideas:confused:
Might have to do with the ability of the QPI and IMC circuitry.
Im sure they support it. But as far as I know, Only up to DDR3-1333 is JEDEC standard yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by dexman
How hard will it be to get the base clock to 200MHz? I'm wondering how easy/hard it will be to get the 2.66GHz Nehalem to 4.0GHz on air cooling. The actual Nehalem core should be capable of similar (or even better perhaps, because of the deeper pipeline) clocks to Core 2, so the question is whether or not the non-XE versions will be held back as much as a CPU like the Q9300 or Q9450 is held back now.
The reference clock isn't really designed to scale that way, so it'll be interesting if you are trying to push it up that high I think. But we could be surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
So how are these cpu´s supposed to be overclocked? I mean if cpu freq is "pll clock*cpu multiplier" we must be able to adjust any of those two factors to increase frecuency right? or am I missing something here?:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Held back?Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
I was more speaking of getting the ref clock from 133 to 200 might be a bit of a feat. The ref clock will increase, but it remains to be seen if a 50% overclock on the reference clock is even obtainable. All i'm saying is without hearing more, don't get your hopes up on seeing the reference clock move that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by npk
I doubt the reference clock is designed to be overclocked on AMDs either but they seem to go high enough on select chips.
If they don't overclock well via the reference clock or the board manufacturers don't figure out a way to sneak in higher multipliers than intended through 'Turbo' then I must say I'm less tempted. A $999 CPU is probably the last thing I'll ever buy.
If one can't OC nehalem, then why getting one? ...unless early 2 GHz Nehalem is faster than 3.8-4.2 GHz Core2Quad. :D
...which I doubt.
Why buy a $999 processor when the 2.66GHz is already given a $284 tp-1000. $299 to $325? There hasn't been many times that folks bought a top to then overclock.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
It will kick a$$ without high overclocks anyway. That's without comparing it to an already slower AMD but Intel processors as well.
The slowest model will be 2.66GHz and what Intel Quad Cores overclock to 3.8 to 4.2GHz right now? Current models might need about a 400MHz head start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I'm kinda out of it on how high the ref clock on AMD chips goes, but is a 50% increase there within the realm of possibility? It's a very similar system so if 300MHz clocks from a base of 200 on AMD are possible I would assume that it's may be possible to get 200Mhz from a base of 133 on Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
I haven't been paying too much attention to AMD clocking, but I don't think i've seen 300. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
EDIT:
hehe, and I found some
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=167502 There's 310
So right now it's all just a waiting game. We will have to wait and see how well the reference clock does scale.
front side bus clocks is said to make things hotter (right?)
so 266mhz down to 133mhz may lower heat & power some how.
I don't want to wait..:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
You can't really compare the 2 in that way. It's a totally different interconnect. The move from the FSB to the QPI, i think does have some positive effects on power usage, but in this case the power usage doesn't have anything to do with clock speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
I know, I'm all giddy tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
SQUWEEEEEEEEEEE
This is sitting behind me waiting for a Gainstown system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
Just the case, the guts will be not Koolance..:D
http://www.koolance.com/water-coolin...product_id=198
The Yorkfield core is capable of 4GHz, but the Q9300 / Q9450 are held back because of the multiplier. 4GHz on a Q9450 would require a 500MHz FSB, absolutely impossible to make stable on air cooling with a quad-core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It does have a low core volt. I think it is 1.075v. I think we will soon start seeing some OC Nehalem reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
http://www.nehalemnews.com/
That is just the slowest first release Bloomfield (4 cores w/ hyperthread). They call the 2.66 Bloomfield mainstream. I don't think any Bloomfield is mainstream. Many LGA1366 CPUs will follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
No mainstream parts will be available at launch. It will be all server and high end at launch, with mainstream and performance mainstream trickling in over what probably will be a few months.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
Remember, Intel still has some Penryns to sell off, and the Christmas buying season is perfect for that.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Bloomfield isn't mainstream, but cheapest 2.66GHz 285$ is mainstream. Whole mainstream platform is Lynnfield, that will be available late Q2/Q3 2009.
A 3000mhz dual Gainstown is "faster" than my Harpertown at 3600..Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I needed to break 3750 to match it and remember, thats matching a pre release beta system not a refined retail.
This was using CineBench10 as a test..
Yes and no .... The system clock is used to derive the clocks for many of the other components in a system, some other oddites have their own clock gens, but the major components, memory - CPU - bus /chipset time themselves from a common clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Each device operates at a frequency of some multiplier of that base clock. The power given by any one chip is really, to a simple form, a sum of two terms.
Ptotal = Pdynamic + Pstatic
The Pdyanamic term is the electrical power as a result of an oscillating current against a load formed from a capacitor. The Pstatic term is the rest power or idle power which comes from leakage (but not all the potential leakage, just the 'off' state leakage). Think of Pdynamic as the power to flip the switch (transistor) and the Pstatic term as the small amount of current that may flow through a faulty switch when in the off position.
The Pstatic term is very hard to define, so for the sake of argument let's say this is small. Of course it isn't terribly small but it use to be in the past :)
The main contribution then is Pdynamic which is simply defined as P=C*V^2*F with C as the total capacitance for the device (chip), V is voltage, and F is frequency.
So while the system clock is 133 MHz, if the chip is multiplied up to 3.0 GHz, it will consume the same amount as if the system clock was 300 Mhz and multiplied up by 10. This is no different.
However, there are other system components that clock against this, and the new QPI implementation ... it will not be readily known how the power will compare until we actually get to see the stuff in action.
Jack
holy $hit
Intel and its f'ing blitzkrieg product releases. This is going to totally kick amd in the ballz.... again
I'm definitely not complaining though.
I only did reply because the others replied so well. There are currently Mainstream Xeons and Bloomfield will fit right in with these in that same market. One thing Intel has always done well by Hook or by Crook is fill all market segments half-way nice choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckbam
Mainstream is the defined differently by almost all tech companies. Intel's road-map lists that slowest Nehalem as Mainstream, not be confused with Budget Mainstream.
Edit for example.
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...oomfield_1.png
is all this information correct?Quote:
Nehalem is not overly well optimized to do much of anything with single threaded apps, which represent most of the bulk of the software sold out there in cyberland. At most you will see about a 10% performance increase clock per clock, quad core per quad core. So a Bloomfield running at 2.66 GHz will outrun a Q9450 by roughly 10% on benchmarks that involve single threads. However, feed the Bloomy a blooming multithreaded app, and watch it leave the Penryn in its trail with up to double the performance.
Yep, pretty correct.
Im tired of my E6600. When does the waiting stop?!?!?!?
No. because of this -- " ... represent most of the bulk of the software sold out there in cyberland" .... it is probably 1/2 or more is multithreaded. Everything else is about right, though i would disagree with the 10% number ... it will vary pretty wildly from just a little to 20% or more for some single threaded apps. However, I would not say he is wrong because either of us could be right, we will know when the processor arrives.Quote:
Originally Posted by natty
Jack
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I'd say that 10% is far too high estimation.
50%+:rofl:
Most programs don't need it though.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...-e4x00-p1.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by m^2
His software list is pretty well representative of both professional an non-professional applications available today.
Gen-2 games of course are not, but the majority of contemporary games are. Multicore processors have been out > 3 years now.
A month or two ago I was also :rofl: when someone said that same thing, then when I went out and actually looked... it's true, about 1/2 of what you can find is multithreaded (excluding the sharecrapware) and there is a multithreaded app available for most all catagories of usages you can find.
Video encoding -- yep.
NLE -- Yep
Photography -- yep
Games -- yep
compression -- yep
Software has done a more to catch up that what we realize.
On the single threaded material... it will vary, but you will be shocked when the numbers come out I suspect. What is more shocking, and make note of this ... it will be hard to find more single threaded benchmark data since there will be much much less of it when the reviews come.
You are right but just opening multiple threads and utilizing all this threads is still a very big different. I other words .. whats better ? : 2 full utilized Core or all cores with 12.5 % (quad core).Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
For examble:
Just found out that video encoding (Nero Suite) scales very well from 1 to 2 Cores (About 1.8x) but from 1 to 4 its only about 2.7x, which means one core is totaly obsolet.
It doesnt mean 1 core is obsolete. Its about diminishing returns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza
Again, depends on the specific encoder and settings used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza
x264 is one that scales well, 100% usage for 8 cores (it's been reported 16 cores as well and probably more when it comes out) when settings are maxxed out
Good point, I never said that the multithreaded apps were well multithreaded :) Windows Media Encoder will only split off two threads .. is another example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza
The reason I made this point is about 2-3 months ago, I was developing a multitasking test scenario. What I wanted was one case where I had one dual threaded app, and two single threaded apps, in other cases I wanted all just general threaded apps.
It is now hard to find general single threaded apps that represent a mainstream like applications that puts any kind of load on the processor.
Jack
You are right x264 is a perfect example for very well optimized SMT (But thats the absolulty minor at least for Desktop APPs). Just try to recode a DVD to xvid and you will not scale as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ
I just wanted to say that you wont get a massive perfomance gain with a nehalem just because of the fact the application uses multithreading. Still depending on how good SMT scales with the cores.
And you say that this list is representative?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
How about office programs?
How about internet programs?
How about desktop management programs?
How about shell extensions?
How about tiny tools that do simple jobs?
How about media players and managers?
How about system management programs?
On the list you get mostly professional tools + games + archivers. Usually costly ones.
BTW on my computer I have 2 programs from the list. 1 is multithreaded. And used it like 2 times during ~year since I installed it.
Is there any difference between Bloomfield and Lynnfield other than QPI?
Lynnfield - dual-channel DDR3, on-die PCI-E, possible Intel IGP on package (might be just for duallies though)Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
Bloomfield - triple-channel DDR3, off-die PCI-E (on X58)
This almost deserved a new thread:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835114080
That's one messy looking HSF.
ya, looks like they didn't have an adequate fan for the heatsink and just put some random fan on it :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanAndreevich
Ugly and propably inefficient cooler
Well, an efficient cooler doesn't have to be beautiful, but this one is probably inefficient yes :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogPO
We ve seen some News, about Nehalem launch in mid of September. Because i have a CPU and board too, i am waiting for NDA lifts ... but today i received message - end of NDA is postponed to October.
Did the message specify any specific time in October? I am really looking forward to Bloomfield and I'd like to get one soon, as I just sold my P35 motherboard and about to sell my QX9650 :(Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
in first or second week
Ooopppp, did not see this message posted a couple of weeks ago.... should take a moment to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza
You will find this to be true for many applications, in some others not so true and scaling is very good. There are a couple of reasons for this...
In general, two ways to look at computational parallelism ... 1) Task based and 2) data set based.
Let me explain 2 first -- data based parallism is basically a pool of data that needs to be crunched, and each element in the data domain is independent of any other. Software can then thread up as many threads as it likes, and the data set divided into as many subsets as needed, and away you go. This provides almost perfect scaling, because the thread is only depending on the data it is working on. Examples of this are GPUs with rendering and shading textures, or ray-tracing through divying up a scene (example, Cinebench cuts the scene into quarters and each thread goes as fast as the complextity of that segment takes it ... some segments finish earlier, and as such the remaining segment divides up again and off they go).
For 1, think of this as taking a single threaded instruction stream and looking for ways to chop it up into segments, sending each segment through in parallel. The problem is if your the segments you generate depend on the output or result of another there is ambiguity ... this type of programming is very difficult to achieve because the programmer must know something about the way the code behaves. Examples include -- cpu portion of gaming code, video encoding (predictive framing, motion compensation), etc. In this type of situation, Amdahl's Law comes into play, where no matter what you do no matter what you try, the speed up of a program spread over several execution resources will never scale to the multple of the total number of resources available... specifically due to the interdependency.
Then there is also other problems with thread level parallelism, mostly do to memory management. Example, a shared main memory pool serviced by discrete cache pools. There exists the possibility that as a address in main memory is copied between the two different discrete caches, one processor may change the information in one cache that at some point the thread on the other core will need access to. The ambiguity of discrete caches to have altered data at any point in time creates the coherency problem, which the CPU must rationalize before it can proceed. This of itself slows down the parallel speedup one may achieve in just the overhead in cohering the caches. This is true in most all cases, and special protocols are used to try and make it as efficient as possible.
So, in summary ... simply adding more cores to the problem will not guarantee a subsequent speed up in execution commensurate with the number of cores added. What I mean is, don't expect a 2x speed up going from 2 cores to 4, and don't expect 2x going from 4 to 8.
Jack
JumpingJack, you must be getting old :D
You had to have seen that post, you already replied to it :D Post 154.
Yep, senility is setting in. I didn't recall seeing it, and as such thought it an interesting point to rebut ... most likely I did not even say the same thing :) --- edit: oooop, now I see --yeah, when I read the post something else popped into my head :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
Yes, I think it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
Excel is multithreaded. Not sure of the other apps, I thinkQuote:
How about office programs?
IE7 I don't think is, but flash adobe is most of the adobe suite.Quote:
How about internet programs?
Haven't researched this, sure there are some that are and some that aren't. A savvy, computer knowledgeable person would know what they wanted and what it does.Quote:
How about desktop management programs?
Shell extensions are usually simple little utilities, not sure it is even needed. But to mention a few... Winrar, winzip also install as shell extensions and are multithreaded.Quote:
How about shell extensions?
Define tiny?Quote:
How about tiny tools that do simple jobs?
PowerDVD is multithreaded, as is WinDVD -- two very common apps.Quote:
How about media players and managers?
Lasts I looked, both Windows XP and Vista managed multiple cores and threads.Quote:
How about system management programs?
Again, one site who does a very comprehensive test suite enumerates a large portion of software representative from most usage scenarios and which are multithreaded:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...08-3-0-p1.html
I don't know about you, but looking through that list it appears more software is > 1 thread than that this is single threaded.
Then you are not really using a computer, or don't know how. You are probably wasting your money... and definitely your time posting to a power user forum.Quote:
TW on my computer I have 2 programs from the list. 1 is multithreaded. And used it like 2 times during ~year since I installed it.
Excel is far from being "most office apps".Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Flash is not internet, but multimedia program. No browser, email client, IM, downloader I know of is multithreaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I seriusly doubt that more than 1% of them is multithreaded. Actually I don't know even one...and it seems neither you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
You got the point, even though these extensions themselves aren't multithreaded, it's their function that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Well, it's more about function than size, but usually less than 200 KB.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
A few examples from my system:
BossKey - virtual desktops, very basic implementation
Deliminator - removes the wait when you try to delete a locked file by hacking system dlls
pixie - color picker
nrg2iso - converter
UPXUnpack v1 - unpacker
ForceDel - deletes stubborn files
Slower - slows down applications
RegShot - detects registry changes
TCMenu - lets you have menu under a button in Total Commander
Taskix - rearranges taskbar items
trid - file identifier
GSAR - search and replace in files
HDHacker - low level HDD access
Revelation - password revealer
TweakUI
babyftp - FTP server
KL-Detector - Key logger detector
cports - lists open ports
apt - kills applications that want to live
StartUpLite - removes useless startup entries
RegASSASSIN - like ForceDel, but for registry
Stripper - reduced PNG size
HTMLShrinkerLight - removes unnecessary characters from HTML code
TiDy - HTML cleaner / formatter
CLCL - clipboard manager
CamStudio - desktop recorder
RootkitRevealer - hunts rootkits
shexview - lists shell extensions
PrcView - Task manager
DShutdown - shutdown manager
PEiD - executable idetifier
AVImedic - heals corrupted .avis
I could add many more, I guess that they are all single threaded except ForceDel (though it's not that it needs a lot of computing power) and (unlikely) CamStudio + RootkitRevealer
OK, here you found something too. They are no match for Winamp in terms of popularity and neither is a manager, but at least it is something.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I meant programs that you use to manage your system. I mentioned some in the "simple tools", but you could add i.e. defragmenter or regedit fit here too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
You're repeating yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
:rofl: Please, log your CPU usage during whole day of work. How much time does it spend running at 100%?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Do you really find that list to be comprehensive enough to judge one's computer skills by counting number of programs from it that the person uses? :down:
Just hunting bits here, but how da hell do you expect stuff that is HDD dependant to be multithreaded? Like defragmenter (there's no point in multithreading it, the HDD speed is the bottleneck)
I wrote several posts above:
So I don't expect them to be multithreaded. Just note that they usually aren't and therefore "it is probably 1/2 or more is multithreaded" is totally wrong.Quote:
Most programs don't need it though.
It is the most commonly used spreadsheet, and the one that generates the most overhead. However, in my work environment I typically have at least 2-3 of the apps open, so multithreaded or not, the extra horsepower is noticeable in multitasking.Quote:
Originally Posted by m^2
Flash is the most common multimedia object imbedded in web apps on the web... post a Youtube video, you will post flash.Quote:
Flash is not internet, but multimedia program. No browser, email client, IM, downloader I know of is multithreaded.
Haven't researched it, I don't use desktop management software myself other than remote desktop for other systems.Quote:
I seriusly doubt that more than 1% of them is multithreaded. Actually I don't know even one...and it seems neither you do.
many other extensions run in the background, which are nothing more than a bunch of single threads... again, benefiting from extra cores. There are applications for extensions that do benefit and exists http://www.ssware.com/Quote:
You got the point, even though these extensions themselves aren't multithreaded, it's their function that matters.
Interesting, a list of crap that nobody really uses except downloaded from shareware sites... some are useful i suppose, embedded with adware no doubt.Quote:
Well, it's more about function than size, but usually less than 200 KB.
A few examples from my system:
BossKey - virtual desktops, very basic implementation
Deliminator - removes the wait when you try to delete a locked file by hacking system dlls
pixie - color picker
nrg2iso - converter
UPXUnpack v1 - unpacker
ForceDel - deletes stubborn file
Winamp does not utilize it's own codecs ... but if you do play various files through this app it will call the multithreaded codecs you must install to use it.Quote:
OK, here you found something too. They are no match for Winamp in terms of popularity and neither is a manager, but at least it is something.
Quicktime is mutlithreaded, as is sonic cinepak codecs from Roxio, as is the intervideo codecs, etc. etc. though Winamp does not support these, it does use Lame for encoding (which has MT variants you can use), hell even Windows media encoder is multithreaded.
Just checked, windows defragger spawns 7 threads doing one drive, windows desktop manager spawns 8, IE has 37 threads ... of course not all active, but you get the jist.Quote:
I meant programs that you use to manage your system. I mentioned some in the "simple tools", but you could add i.e. defragmenter or regedit fit here too.
The point is, overall, the amount of multithreaded code today is much more available in most all the common usage scenarios that it makes quads viable.
Of course I am, data is data you obviously did not spend any time researching your thesis.Quote:
You're repeating yourself.
I have 3 quads going 100% 24x7.Quote:
:rofl: Please, log your CPU usage during whole day of work. How much time does it spend running at 100%?
Yes. Look, if you are not a power user and simply email, surf the web, and use little shut down applet shell extensions, you don't even need a dual core... go get a Via Nano or Atom based system it will do all you need.Quote:
Do you really find that list to be comprehensive enough to judge one's computer skills by counting number of programs from it that the person uses? :down:
I agree, but it doesn't negate my point - most office apps aren't multithreaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I expected it to end up this way. We were talking about multithreading, not multitasking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
In this case flash player is just a plugin, not a separate app. And the browser that runs this flash is most likely singlethreaded.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Hello, earth here. "Do one thing, but do it well" - they all follow this philosophy, does it make them crap? None of them is shareware. None of them is adware.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Don't know how about you, but I don't have to install any codecs to use it, they come preinstalled.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Anyway, it's the same case as with flash - application isn't multithreaded, just some extensions are.
You're talking about encoding - yes, it's (fortunately) usually multithreaded. I've been using LameMT too until I switched to loseless formats. But management (usually?) isn't. Playing - at least rarely.
How many of them are spawned by WinAPI? IE has a lot of them, if I got IE7 I'd check, maybe it is multithreaded (my IE6 isn't...no, I use FF), but I guess that the other ones aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I didn't deny it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
So I guess that either you do some rendering, which most people don't or you're crunching, which is spending money on a hobby - surely not a waste, but not productive either.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
The point is that this list is far from exhausting and MOST advanced tools aren't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
It has 7zip. Where's FreeArc? Squeez? PeaZip? (all are multithreaded BTW)
It has Visual Studio. How about Eclipse, Code::Blocks, Borland C++, Delphi, Intel C++ compiler, tools for development in Ruby, Java, asm, Python, NSIS? Where are tools for HTML and flash development?
Matlab, Maple and Mathematica...Octave, MathCAD, LabVIEW?
Irfan View and XnView...Total Commander's lister, Universal Viewer?
MySQL...MSSQL, Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL, SQLite?
Adobe Photoshop...GIMP? Corel?
Paint.NET...there's a dozen of valuable alternatives.
Apache..Nginx, WebLogic?
Where's version control? Virtualization? File managers? Backup programs? Encryption? Antiviruses, firewalls etc.? Wireshark and other network traffic analyzers?
And all types of software I mentioned before? Power users surf the web and listen to music too.
This list is not comprehensive at all it's just a useless bunch of software that 2(1?) people seem to like - you and it's author.
I'll leave this without comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Dude it is not worth the effort.
About the test here http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...08-3-0-p1.html for Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 they test compile time.. Today compile time is of minor importance in development environments.
Rebuilds are seldom done, only for releases and when they are done the may do it in batches.
A lot of developers are also using some sort of virtualisation.
Ohhh, build times are QUITE important.... frankly, we always do full rebuilds because some a**hole might forget to call a full Rebuild when he/she changes a header file, which is NOT checked for changes (and thus C files including it are not recompiled).
Compile time is the one and only reason I am still upgrading my computer... with 19 different builds occuring at the same time (multithreaded compiles), it sure makes a difference
Then you need to educate developers, you are going to speend a lot of time doing nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Multiple builds then AMD is better
Nice news! I guess I'll postpone my upgrade for a bit :D
People forget, and then we wonder why a fix doesn't fix stuff. No tnx ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
You got anything to prove that?Quote:
Multiple builds then AMD is better
I am going to need two PCI slots. Looks like that is going to limit what board I can get. Seems like they most have more PCI-E slots.
any progress ? :shrug:
So is there any real information on when us extreme users will be able to order one from newegg? October? november?
I really see no reason to upgrade from my Q6600. Every single game I've played has been limited by my 8800, not my proc. Seems like a massive waste of money.
This is not really a gaming upgrade. If that is the only demanding thing you do with your computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swatrecon_
IF they don't compile, then how do they debug code? Are you sure you program? Are you saying you never compile until you have your final code? You never check to see if it actually works? This borders on quite possible the most ridiculous statement I have read in any forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Time is money, compile time is important. End of story.
I agree with this FULLY. I am an engineering student and often have to write VERY large FORTRAN programs that takes months to build. If I waited untill everything was done to say "OK, lets see if it works" that would be crazy. What if a small error makes you have to rewrite all the code?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
However, if you are able to write thousands of lines of code without an eroor everytime then don't waste time compiling.
DDR2 may start to go up in price. In most cases, I don't think the boards will get any cheaper. CPU's ??? maybe in the short run. You can buy all this stuff used - maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by CandymanCan
How could you read this as ”don’t compile” ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Do you know the difference between full rebuilds and when you just change one cpp file.
Difference is recompiling a single object file vs recompiling all the object files again. If that object file is linked to multiple files this is still extra time. If you are lucky it only has a single purpose and requires linking to a single file and there isn't a lot of time wasted. But how often is just one source file changed...changing one file somehow always ends up with others being changed to reflect certain changes.
If you have that bad design you will not be able to handle large projects. If I do one rebuild in the app I am doing now just because some of the general code (code that is used every ware). I probably could create a small test application and test the new functionality there in at the same time as I do one full rebuild. It isn't common to get it right for the first try.. You may need to recompile more the once. If the programmer is that stupid and creates design and test code like that there will be much more problems apart from bad design.
There are very good tools today also that helps the programmer, just read about "Visual Assist X" tool for visual studio. It decreases the need for compile a lot.
nice attempetd of thread hijacking gosh and m^2... programming/multithredading apps has nothing to do with earlier launch of nehalem, hell it doesn't even has to do with anything about nehalem....
Luckily I haven't had that happen and the only programming I have done is for classes. But I do see what you are saying. I use visual studio and it is a great tool for programming. It does its best to debug the file for you and alert you to errors.
Intel brings forward Nehalem Launch
When is nda up on Nehalem anyways???
end of nda is under nda. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
:rofl::clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
There's supposed to be some kind of info today or so the rumor went. Not a launch or etc... just some info released.
:lol2: So it would seem!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331