MMM
    X

    Subscribe to New Ads!

    Receive weekly ads in your inbox!



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: [News] ThreadRipper 2, 32Corez/64Thread

  1. #1
    Join XS BOINC Team StyM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tropics
    Posts
    16,513

    [News] ThreadRipper 2, 32Corez/64Thread



    competition FTW!!!!

  2. #2
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    1,208
    The memory-controller configuration raises questions, but I'll withhold judgement until we have proper benchmarks and reviews.

  3. #3
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    This core think is officially out of control.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    679
    Wow.AMD managed to surprise me 2 times in 2 years, first that they are making cheap fast 8core, and now this.These parts obviously are gonna have some drawbacks because half of the dies wont be directly connected to memory, but still...
    And this heavy metal thing.
    Right on dudes, right on ...
    Intel 5960X@4.2Ghz[Prime stable]@4.5 [XTU stable] 1.24v NB@3.6ghz Asrock X99 Extreme 3 4x8GB Corsair Vengeance@3200 16-17-17
    Sapphire nitro+ VEGA 56 Samsung SSD 850 256GB Crucial MX100 512GB HDD:WD10TB WD:8TB Seagate8TB

  6. #6
    Xtreme X.I.P. Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    This core think is officially out of control.
    Parallel execution is the main way we're going to see a continuation of better-than-linear computational capacity growth. You can try to resist it if you want to, but you'd just be trying to resist the inevitable future.
    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.

  7. #7
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    Parallel execution is the main way we're going to see a continuation of better-than-linear computational capacity growth. You can try to resist it if you want to, but you'd just be trying to resist the inevitable future.
    I agree to a point. From a raw compute perspective this is true, but I think that scheduling and being able to split the micro-ops over several cores is really where growth can happen. Just think of how few applications support more than 4 cores right now. If the CPU scheduler itself could coordinate the cache and parallelize task scheduling on its own, the speedup we'd see across the board would be easily polynomial.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  8. #8
    One-Eyed Killing Machine
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Inside a pot
    Posts
    6,393
    Hitting a dead-end.
    The amount of applications that truly benefit from 20+ cores is basically... erm... counted easily with 10 fingers...

    For video editing for example a highly clocked 6c12t is still the king.
    We want something like a 16c32t 4.8GHz daily driver ( if not 5-5.2GHz at least with 6 cores active to speed up the post-processing, while the 16c @ 4.8GHz will take on the encoding part of the process )
    Coding 24/7... Limited forums/PMs time.

    -Justice isn't blind, Justice is ashamed.

    Many thanks to: Sue Wu, Yiwen Lin, Steven Kuo, Crystal Chen, Vivian Lien, Joe Chan, Sascha Krohn, Joe James, Dan Snyder, Amy Deng, Jack Peterson, Hank Peng, Mafalda Cogliani, Olivia Lee, Marta Piccoli, Mike Clements, Alex Ruedinger, Oliver Baltuch, Korinna Dieck, Steffen Eisentein, Francois Piednoel, Tanja Markovic, Cyril Pelupessy (R.I.P. ), Juan J. Guerrero

  9. #9
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    Parallel execution is the main way we're going to see a continuation of better-than-linear computational capacity growth. You can try to resist it if you want to, but you'd just be trying to resist the inevitable future.
    In theory yes but in real life developing applications that parallel is mostly not possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by BenchZowner View Post
    Hitting a dead-end.
    The amount of applications that truly benefit from 20+ cores is basically... erm... counted easily with 10 fingers...

    For video editing for example a highly clocked 6c12t is still the king.
    We want something like a 16c32t 4.8GHz daily driver ( if not 5-5.2GHz at least with 6 cores active to speed up the post-processing, while the 16c @ 4.8GHz will take on the encoding part of the process )
    Parallel development is a real pain especially when you have to share memory with other threads. Also finding situations which will really benefit parallelism is also very hard. Overhead of opening and closing threads are very expensive and you can easily find your application running slow with parallelism than a single thread.

    And my final thoughts is more core is good for servers but for desktops and workstations there are really very little examples that you can benefit a 32 core 64 thread cpu.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  10. #10
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,772
    Quote Originally Posted by AliG View Post
    I agree to a point. From a raw compute perspective this is true, but I think that scheduling and being able to split the micro-ops over several cores is really where growth can happen. Just think of how few applications support more than 4 cores right now. If the CPU scheduler itself could coordinate the cache and parallelize task scheduling on its own, the speedup we'd see across the board would be easily polynomial.
    The TR is intended to be a workstation platform with a focus on big data or virtualization. 32 cores should be good for that assuming you cannot get gpu acceleration.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  11. #11
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by zanzabar View Post
    The TR is intended to be a workstation platform with a focus on big data or virtualization. 32 cores should be good for that assuming you cannot get gpu acceleration.
    For sure, no one should buy this for a gaming machine. My point was simply that in general, scheduling is really where large scale improvements could be had. If the CPU's internal micro-op scheduler could parallelize the work over multiple cores that share low level cache, I bet the improvements would be at minimum polynomial. It would be in effect turning standard CPUs into quantum machines.

    In the mean time we'll just have to keep relying on the software people. It actually surprises me how few programmers I know that really understand multithreading. It's much simpler than people realize if you have a good kernel for task management, but a complete pain to translate old code into a real time approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  12. #12
    Xtreme X.I.P. JPQY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    294
    I see people always say the same..no applications or just a few..while we in the chess world have waited for year to get more cores!
    When first dual cores came out we had already chess engines who can handle 2048cores..and if i remember right it was in 2005 with the Athlon 64 X2 3800+
    So that's more then 10years ago ..and i'm still looking for more cores

    Check this list : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...test-AMD-Intel

    Chess world moving fast..now finally a engine that use your GPU cuda cores! using NN started from Zero chess knowledge..very curious when they will
    pass engine strenght on CPU !
    -Core i9 7980XE @4,20Ghz Vcore:1,10V
    -Asrock X299 Taichi XE
    -Custom water-cooling loop
    -16Gb Corsair DDR4 3200Mhz
    -Samsung 970 evo Plus 500Gb
    -Samsung 960 evo 250Gb
    -Samsung 850 evo 500Gb
    -Samsung SH-S223Q
    -Asus RTX 2080 Dual OC
    -Cooler Master HAF 932
    -Seasonic Prime 1300W Gold

    Test results are always welcome with this Chess Test where all your cores/threads will run @100% ,Thanks
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5259523

  13. #13
    Xtreme X.I.P. Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,218
    Quote Originally Posted by AliG View Post
    I agree to a point. From a raw compute perspective this is true, but I think that scheduling and being able to split the micro-ops over several cores is really where growth can happen. Just think of how few applications support more than 4 cores right now. If the CPU scheduler itself could coordinate the cache and parallelize task scheduling on its own, the speedup we'd see across the board would be easily polynomial.
    That isn't the panacea that you might think it is. Instructions are often sequence dependent. The ones that aren't already do what you're talking about. The combination of superscalar design and out of order execution describe what you want, but there is no need for nor would there be benefit from shifting those instructions to other cores to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    In theory yes but in real life developing applications that parallel is mostly not possible.
    I don't think I agree with this sentiment. In general everyday computing we've long ago reached a point where nearly any processor is capable of completing the most common and frequent of tasks effectively instantly. The things that are really heavy and fall outside of the scope of standard tasks are the ones that fortunately tend to be very parallel--compression, compilation, encoding, encryption, and others.

    Games have historically been one of the best examples of a heavy task where that isn't the case, but that isn't because it's not possible. It's a lack of effort by most developers. There are examples of games built on extensive task queue architectures which thread out quite well.

    Most lengthy tasks are that way not because the algorithms themselves are expensive (by modern standards--such was not the case in the 80s and 90s) but because the algorithms are applied to a very large data set. Most of the time, it's pretty trivial to break the data set into chunks and work on as many of them in parallel as you have execution resources for.

    Source: I am a programmer. I've written a lot of parallel code over decades.
    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.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    I don't think I agree with this sentiment. In general everyday computing we've long ago reached a point where nearly any processor is capable of completing the most common and frequent of tasks effectively instantly. The things that are really heavy and fall outside of the scope of standard tasks are the ones that fortunately tend to be very parallel--compression, compilation, encoding, encryption, and others.

    Games have historically been one of the best examples of a heavy task where that isn't the case, but that isn't because it's not possible. It's a lack of effort by most developers. There are examples of games built on extensive task queue architectures which thread out quite well.

    Most lengthy tasks are that way not because the algorithms themselves are expensive (by modern standards--such was not the case in the 80s and 90s) but because the algorithms are applied to a very large data set. Most of the time, it's pretty trivial to break the data set into chunks and work on as many of them in parallel as you have execution resources for.

    Source: I am a programmer. I've written a lot of parallel code over decades.
    Really anything that involves real time tasks can be parallelized rather easily. I agree that games are a great example of real time systems should be very easily multithreaded, but often aren't out of laziness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  15. #15
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,402
    Quote Originally Posted by AliG View Post
    Really anything that involves real time tasks can be parallelized rather easily. I agree that games are a great example of real time systems should be very easily multithreaded, but often aren't out of laziness.
    Agree, a code prototyped for a test, gets most of the time in production.
    Why bother speed-up or code it in a better way, if it works already ?

    Software engineer are just the problem of computing. more ressources they have, more lazy they are. Just look at Android ...

    Hardware did improve a lot since 90's. Software didn't followed fast enough.

    I had in a not so far past some very large models to simulate. The simulation process time was around a week, worst case two weeks on a huge server with tons of cores and memory. If I do a minor change, I have to do again all simulation of the system. The simulation was multiprocess. One simulation by core. But a lot of tests and runs to do, so was almost like multi-core in a way.

    I was lucky I know matlab very well. I simplified the model a bit, use made the computing on 3D matrix. It was the same compute stuff, I used 3D matrix to do the same operation on all data in a parrallel way. And I multi-threaded the computing too because it is easy in matlab and fun. I got the simulation results in a 1% accurracy with the full model and parasitics, Good enough for my needs. The process time was around 120 seconds on an old i5, the size of memory required gets from 12-20GBytes to 100MBytes/500MBytes. So a huge improvement.

    It took's me a week to write and improve the programm. After that I could do hundreds of full simulations in a day.

  16. #16
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    Today believe or not we still couldn't find innovative multi-threaded design patterns for most of the scenarios. So it is not laziness or just developers don't care but because what we know is limiting us.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  17. #17
    One-Eyed Killing Machine
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Inside a pot
    Posts
    6,393
    Quote Originally Posted by JPQY View Post
    I see people always say the same..no applications or just a few..while we in the chess world have waited for year to get more cores!
    When first dual cores came out we had already chess engines who can handle 2048cores..and if i remember right it was in 2005 with the Athlon 64 X2 3800+
    So that's more then 10years ago ..and i'm still looking for more cores

    Check this list : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...test-AMD-Intel

    Chess world moving fast..now finally a engine that use your GPU cuda cores! using NN started from Zero chess knowledge..very curious when they will
    pass engine strenght on CPU !
    That's because chess is a very good example/game for multi-threading.
    By nature, the computer and a normal person ( a very good at chess person that is ) do think a lot of moves ahead, even compute different plays and outcomes at the same time.
    A high speed and multi-multi-core system will execute a thousand plays in the background while you think about your current move.

    In the other hand, a multiplayer fps game can't because of the infinite variables it has ( from movements, to weapon changes, third party entering a fight for which it had calculated the most probable outcomes, etc etc )
    Coding 24/7... Limited forums/PMs time.

    -Justice isn't blind, Justice is ashamed.

    Many thanks to: Sue Wu, Yiwen Lin, Steven Kuo, Crystal Chen, Vivian Lien, Joe Chan, Sascha Krohn, Joe James, Dan Snyder, Amy Deng, Jack Peterson, Hank Peng, Mafalda Cogliani, Olivia Lee, Marta Piccoli, Mike Clements, Alex Ruedinger, Oliver Baltuch, Korinna Dieck, Steffen Eisentein, Francois Piednoel, Tanja Markovic, Cyril Pelupessy (R.I.P. ), Juan J. Guerrero

  18. #18
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ankara Turkey
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by BenchZowner View Post
    That's because chess is a very good example/game for multi-threading.
    By nature, the computer and a normal person ( a very good at chess person that is ) do think a lot of moves ahead, even compute different plays and outcomes at the same time.
    A high speed and multi-multi-core system will execute a thousand plays in the background while you think about your current move.

    In the other hand, a multiplayer fps game can't because of the infinite variables it has ( from movements, to weapon changes, third party entering a fight for which it had calculated the most probable outcomes, etc etc )
    You are totally right. I am a computer engineer experienced on software. I am a partner of a company that develops mission critical software solutions for NATO. I am the head of R&D and I don't care about the costs. I won't use any of my previous libraries if they aren't developed by recent software architectural requirements. I am on parallelism 2007 that Microsoft announced its amp library. First of all multi threaded applications and parallelism is not same. While parallelism is a sub set of multi threaded applications actually they are totally different. A 32 core 64 thread cpu means parallelism not just multi threading. And what we have today is just this. We are waiting for brilliant people to show as new ways to use parallelism but I belive we have to start with hardware improvements.


    When i'm being paid i always do my job through.

  19. #19
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by kromosto View Post
    You are totally right. I am a computer engineer experienced on software. I am a partner of a company that develops mission critical software solutions for NATO. I am the head of R&D and I don't care about the costs. I won't use any of my previous libraries if they aren't developed by recent software architectural requirements. I am on parallelism 2007 that Microsoft announced its amp library. First of all multi threaded applications and parallelism is not same. While parallelism is a sub set of multi threaded applications actually they are totally different. A 32 core 64 thread cpu means parallelism not just multi threading. And what we have today is just this. We are waiting for brilliant people to show as new ways to use parallelism but I belive we have to start with hardware improvements.
    I disagree, I moved from the hardware to embedded role myself and think that there's a lot more opportunity than people realize. Sure parallelizing over 32 cores is complicated, but there's little preventing lot of embedded controls or vision systems couldn't be easily extended over 4 or 8 cores aside from the cost of redoing the architectures.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  20. #20
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    HD0
    Posts
    2,646
    Each Chrome tab can now get its own core.

    And 2GB of memory.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by xlink View Post
    Each Chrome tab can now get its own core.

    And 2GB of memory.
    Lol and this is why I've never understood the fascination with cores when it comes to smartphones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

  22. #22
    I am Xtreme zanzabar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SF bay area, CA
    Posts
    15,772
    Quote Originally Posted by AliG View Post
    Lol and this is why I've never understood the fascination with cores when it comes to smartphones.
    Cores are great for cell phones since you can pair them off for an energy efficient basic core and a powerful core, and if you have an OS that does multi threading like android you can put one active app on each core for better battery. The same is true for newer laptops with real 8th gen intel parts and battery in laptops.

    I dont get 16 or 32 cores for a desktop, maybe for a special use work station, but if turbo and scheduling works right more cores are better most of the time. I really like six cores so I can run a plex/file server on my gaming desktop.
    5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
    samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi

  23. #23
    Xtremely High Voltage Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    16,048
    I want a 32 core box, because nerd reasons.
    The Cardboard Master
    Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
    Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64

  24. #24
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    I want a 32 core box, because nerd reasons.
    So much this ^^ !!

  25. #25
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Ace Deuce, Michigan
    Posts
    3,956
    Quote Originally Posted by zanzabar View Post
    Cores are great for cell phones since you can pair them off for an energy efficient basic core and a powerful core, and if you have an OS that does multi threading like android you can put one active app on each core for better battery. The same is true for newer laptops with real 8th gen intel parts and battery in laptops.

    I dont get 16 or 32 cores for a desktop, maybe for a special use work station, but if turbo and scheduling works right more cores are better most of the time. I really like six cores so I can run a plex/file server on my gaming desktop.
    Meh the Apple chips are proof that fewer cores with 4 ALU/AGUs > more cores with 2 ALU/AGUs. Almost all software in the mobile domain is still single threaded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans de Vries View Post

    JF-AMD posting: IPC increases!!!!!!! How many times did I tell you!!!

    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    terrace215 post: IPC decreases, The more I post the more it decreases.
    .....}
    until (interrupt by Movieman)


    Regards, Hans

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •