If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Stow wrote:
You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559 Reet petite and awesome neat :-) What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter. And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as they use their cellphones. :-) Yousuf Khan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Yousuf Khan wrote:
Rob Stow wrote: You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559 Reet petite and awesome neat :-) What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter. And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as they use their cellphones. :-) Yousuf Khan Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ? -- Reply to Do not remove anything. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rob Stow wrote:
RusH wrote: Mike Smith wrote : Rob Stow wrote: Son of a friend of mine is in Japan teaching English and could perhaps ship something to me. Hear, hear. I would love to build an ATX Pentium M system. http://www.google.pl/search?q=%22pentium+m+motherboard first hit - doh In the section you snipped you missed the part about wanting an ATX motherboard. The AOpen one is just another one of those less-than-full-featured micros. Only 2 DIMM slots and only 3 PCI slots just doesn't cut it - particularly when it costs twice as much as a full-featured ATX board. Indeed. If I were really desperate, I could buy one of those mini-ITX jobs from Commell or Lippert, but damn are they expensive. A lot of people - but not me - would also be disappointed by no AGP 3.0. I could go either way. I would love to build a Pentium M gaming system, but what I'm really looking for is to be able to build low-power, low-noise (preferably silent) servers to experiment with. (I live in a small apartment and don't have the luxury of a spare room where I can put all the computers and then keep the door closed.) -- Mike Smith |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article tB8ed.181563$a41.62910@pd7tw2no, Rob Stow writes: | Yousuf Khan wrote: | Rob Stow wrote: | | You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon | you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to | power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559 | | Reet petite and awesome neat :-) | | What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered | tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter. | | And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as | they use their cellphones. :-) | | Sales of Chanel #5 are about to take a huge boost ? You have forgotten the need to water-cool them - it's really Channel number five. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob Stow" wrote in message newsl_dd.1976$kN2.1018@pd7tw3no... snip What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter. For those, you might not want to have the jet engine run a generator to create electricity. It might make more sense to gear down the turbine to turn the shaft on the tool directly (i.e. like a prop jet) But I think these are a long way off. :-) -- - Stephen Fuld e-mail address disguised to prevent spam |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Yousuf Khan wrote: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19187 Yousuf Khan -- Humans: contact me at ykhan at rogers dot com Spambots: just reply to this email address ;-) Will the next one be an Intel Pentium Pentium, i.e. a Pentium 5? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:17:35 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Rob Stow wrote: You may not need a nuclear reactor to power these things, but soon you may be able to get microscopic diesel-fueled jet engines to power them. :-) http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996559 Reet petite and awesome neat :-) What I'd love to see those in is all my battery-powered tools - especially for outdoor use in the winter. And I'd love to see all of those clouds of diesel fumes trailing people as they use their cellphones. :-) Hmm. It would make Sidewinders more effective (in both Afganistan and here. -- Keith |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
... Grumble wrote: AMD's dual core is supposed to run slower than their single core. It looks like Intel hopes they don't have to underclock their dual core? It's likely that all of the dual cores whether from AMD or Intel will be a couple frequency steps behind their single-core cousins. I think the only question is how many frequency steps behind they will be, and whether one mfg or the other will be able to keep the percentage of the drop lower than the other (eg. one might only be one step behind their own single-core, while the other one might be two steps behind). http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18967 "At MPF this week, AMD said two things of note, clock speed and performance. The clock speed was given as three or five speed grades below the prevailing chip at the time. This fits in well with the reports I am getting that it will basically be a couple of low voltage cores on a slice of silicon to remain under the 95W power cap." "The performance estimates AMD gave fit even more closely. They were saying that the dual core chips will be between 130 and 160% of the performance of the highest clocked single core." I haven't seen any similar info on the relative speed of Intel's dual-core chips, but that's not surprising with the recent flurry of roadmap updates. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:48:49 GMT, Rob Stow
wrote: Greg Lindahl wrote: In article rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no, Rob Stow wrote: Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways to continue to improve cpu performance without having to rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ? Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example. Multi-core would be the first significant change to the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months. Come now, they've only been out for a year and a half! AMD has made a few tweaks to the Athlon64/Opteron core with the 90nm shrink, though nothing major. On the Athlon64 side of things AMD has changed the socket used to increase memory bandwidth (or reduce cost relative to Socket 940) and added Cool 'n Quiet to reduce power consumption. The situation has been much the same for the P4 since it first came out. Many small changes have been made to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but the basic chip design has stayed the same. Err, except that the cache has gone from 256K up to 1MB (2MB for the Extremely Expensive Edition and maybe future standard-P4s), the bus speed has gone from 400MT/s up to 800MT/s (with 1066MT/s being a possibility in the near future), the core was significantly redesigned for the Prescott (albeit with rather unimpressive results). SSE3 was added in and 64-bit support is available in limited situations (only to OEMs at the moment). I would say that they have made some changes. Maybe not all the right changes, but they have made changes. You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot. Yes, rather disappointing, those Pentium-Ms are rather nice little chips but Intel really just doesn't want people using them in desktop systems. I have no idea why not, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me, but I'm sure they've got some misguided reasoning. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Hill wrote:
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:48:49 GMT, Rob Stow wrote: Greg Lindahl wrote: In article rGRdd.6870$%%1.5676@pd7tw3no, Rob Stow wrote: Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of multi-core for both AMD and Intel ? In other words, to find ways to continue to improve cpu performance without having to rely solely on jacking up clock speeds ? Both AMD and Intel have already been doing lots of things to improve cpu performance other than only jacking up clock speeds. Such as ? Take the AMD64 processors, for example. Multi-core would be the first significant change to the AMD64 architecture since the Opty 140 and 240 were released at 1.4 GHz. All we have seen in the meantime is a steady jacking up of clock speeds and there is nothing else on the horizon for the next 6 to 9 months. Come now, they've only been out for a year and a half! AMD has made a few tweaks to the Athlon64/Opteron core with the 90nm shrink, though nothing major. True enough - and in that year and a half all AMD has really done with AMD64 processors is to jack up the clock speeds. I'm *not* putting them down for that. My whole point is simply that they can't keep doing that indefinitely - which is why they are switching to dual cores as another way to keep jacking up performance. The first paragraph I posted in this thread hasn't been snipped yet, but what came immediately before it /has/ been snipped. The poster I was replying to was lamenting the fact that dual cores are apparently going to be accompanied by lower clocks. And I say again: isn't that the whole point of dual cores ? Clocks simply can't keep going up the way they have in the past. On the Athlon64 side of things AMD has changed the socket used to AMD has not really changed the socket. All three socket types were planned for long before the first Opterons were released. For some reason they put off releasing the socket 939 versions for a long time, but it was always something they had intended to do. increase memory bandwidth (or reduce cost relative to Socket 940) and added Cool 'n Quiet to reduce power consumption. I was under the impression that C & Q is was a feature that has been in all of the chips since day one, but disabled because it had bugs in it that needed to be worked out. The situation has been much the same for the P4 since it first came out. Many small changes have been made to allow Intel to keep jacking up clock speeds, but the basic chip design has stayed the same. Err, except that the cache has gone from 256K up to 1MB (2MB for the Extremely Expensive Edition and maybe future standard-P4s), the bus speed has gone from 400MT/s up to 800MT/s (with 1066MT/s being a possibility in the near future), the core was significantly redesigned for the Prescott (albeit with rather unimpressive results). SSE3 was added in and 64-bit support is available in limited situations (only to OEMs at the moment). I would say that they have made some changes. Maybe not all the right changes, but they have made changes. You could make an argument for the Pentium M as being Intel's effort to get performance at lower clocks and without needing a nuclear reactor in every home, but since you *still* can't buy a full-fledged ATX motherboard for Pentium M the point is pretty much moot. Yes, rather disappointing, those Pentium-Ms are rather nice little chips but Intel really just doesn't want people using them in desktop systems. I have no idea why not, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me, but I'm sure they've got some misguided reasoning. -- BOYCOTT GOOGLE ! Partners in crime with the scum that rules China. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne...ogle.china.ap/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tried to replace a pentium ii slot 1 with pentium iii slot one, nogo | Robert Casey | General | 7 | September 5th 04 03:34 AM |
Diff between low voltage pentium M and pentium M | Sam Yang | General Hardware | 0 | June 5th 04 09:07 PM |
Intel Updates Plans Again: Adds Pentium 4 EE at 3.40GHz and Pentium 4 at 3.40GHz | lyon_wonder | General | 2 | November 10th 03 11:17 PM |
Pentium II CPU upgrading to Pentium III ??? | Hans Huber | General | 14 | July 18th 03 02:11 PM |
Pentium II CPU upgrading to Pentium III ??? | Hans Huber | Homebuilt PC's | 6 | July 13th 03 12:55 PM |