Quad channel is not on the horizon. It's mass sold for more than a year already. Magny Cours.
Quad channel is not on the horizon. It's mass sold for more than a year already. Magny Cours.
If the server techs tweaks voltages they could save a ton but if the boards are set "wrong" upon delivery then the power consumption falls within variation expectancy and they don't even noticeOriginally Posted by [XC] Oj101
______
Sometimes, it's not your time. Sometimes, you have to make it your time. Sometimes, it can ONLY be your time.
And don't forget you're also battling with the PWM efficiency curve at lower load currents. Sometimes the trade-off nullifies the downstream saving.
Laptops (along with all other battery powered devices like phones) and server farms are the reasons for caring about the lower power aspect of new memory technologies. As desktop users happen to comprise the majority of us here, it's unsurprising if few care. Don't mistake that for it being unimportant, however. While there is no large, immediate impact from faster memory these days since there's plenty of bandwidth already, it's also important not to mistake that for it being okay to halt progress. While Amdahl's Law is usually applied to CPUs, I think it also applies just fine to the memory subsystem since that's ultimately a part of the (logical, not physical) CPU. It states that increasing the performance of any one part of the design (*which isn't currently extremely anemic) impacts overall performance very little. This isn't a good reason to not pursue improvement, however, because then you'll run into Obvious's Law which states that if you do nothing at all to improve a system, that system doesn't ever improve.
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Rule 1A:
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Rule 3:
When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
Random Tip o' the Whatever
You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.
'bout time
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks