Intel drops HyperThreading

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:26:02 GMT CJT wrote in
Message id: :

keith wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:13:19 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:


"CJT" wrote in message
...


David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously
large viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both
graphics editing and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally
suitable to both applications.

1280x1024 isn't exactly hires any more.

There are very few games that support resolutions above that. For normal
desktop work, 1280x1024 is more than adequate. Personally, I prefer to have
two LCD monitors, each 1280x1024, using the second one only when
circumstances require it.


As others here will attest, I've been using a 3200x1600 desktop at
work for almost five years. One display is the laptop's LCD, the other is
a 20" monitor. 1280x1024 is *NOT* adequite (though I live with two
19" CRTs at this resolution, each, here at home).


What percentage of PC computer users do you think have a resolution
over 1280x1024?


What percentage have tried it? What percentage have ever gone back?
Sheesh, I still see people with 1024x768 on 20" monitors at 60Hz! Is that
what we should all aspire to? ...the least common denominator?

Yeah, you da man ... NOT!

Tsk, tsk. Take your spankings over PC power consumption like a man,
puddles. For your sake, I hope that you have a better grasp of your crank
than you do of computers.

Trent wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:26:02 GMT CJT wrote in
Message id: :


keith wrote:


On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:13:19 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:



"CJT" wrote in message
...



David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously
large viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both
graphics editing and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally
suitable to both applications.

1280x1024 isn't exactly hires any more.

There are very few games that support resolutions above that. For normal
desktop work, 1280x1024 is more than adequate. Personally, I prefer to have
two LCD monitors, each 1280x1024, using the second one only when
circumstances require it.


As others here will attest, I've been using a 3200x1600 desktop at
work for almost five years. One display is the laptop's LCD, the other is
a 20" monitor. 1280x1024 is *NOT* adequite (though I live with two
19" CRTs at this resolution, each, here at home).



What percentage of PC computer users do you think have a resolution
over 1280x1024?


What percentage have tried it? What percentage have ever gone back?
Sheesh, I still see people with 1024x768 on 20" monitors at 60Hz! Is that
what we should all aspire to? ...the least common denominator?


Yeah, you da man ... NOT!


Tsk, tsk. Take your spankings over PC power consumption like a man,
puddles. For your sake, I hope that you have a better grasp of your crank
than you do of computers.

Hey! Intel and Apple agree that power consumption of PCs is a problem,
so I'm in good company.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both graphics editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

I just don't like the fact that they are optimized for one resolution.
I like to be able to change resolutions without suffering large
display-quality degradation.

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a
ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both
graphics editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

I just don't like the fact that they are optimized for one
resolution.
I like to be able to change resolutions without suffering large
display-quality degradation.

Chris, I have a 19" LCD with native 1280x1024 resolution. At Keith's
urging, I have on three occasions made a valiant effort to switch my
desktop viewing to that resolution. I mean, I tried hard, adjusting
icon sizes, font sizes, etc. On each occasion, after wasting the
better part of a day I've had to switch back to 1024x768, which is
_not_ native resolution but is the only resolution I'm able to put up
with. Different people have different preferences. Keith thinks I'm
a neanderthal. He's probably right. ;-)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:14:56 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:


So many people say the reverse, including myself. I can only suspect
that one of the following is the case:

1) You had a really good CRT monitor and a really crappy LCD monitor.

2) Your video card was really crappy.

3) You didn't position the LCD monitor in a way that would make you
comfortable.

4) You really like wasting tons of desk space and looking at a blurry
image.

DS


The usual stupid assumptions posted by clueless *******. There are a
few reasons why CRT is superior to LCD in image quality. If you can't
see it then maybe you need to clean your glasses.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:15:35 -0400, George Macdonald
wrote:


Maybe he's into photography and games,

Correct, I'm into both and crt is superior in both instances.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:28:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:


Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both graphics editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

DS


What if I need to run games at lower resolutions, what if I like my
monitor to actually be capable of showing subtle gradation in tones,
what if I prefer superior colour accuracy?

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Praxiteles Democritus wrote:
The usual stupid assumptions posted by clueless *******.

That's more than a little impolite, and counterproductive
if you actually wanted to convince someone.

There are a few reasons why CRT is superior to LCD in image quality.

There are, but you leave them unstated, and one gets
the impression that you don't know them. I usually
equate impoliteness with ignorance.

As I understand it, many gamers still prefer CRT over LCD:

1) CRT phosphors have lower presistance than LCDs, producing
less afterimage during motion ("ghosting")

2) LCD pixels are extremely sharp. This is great for text,
but unpleasant for images. The slight blur of CRTs mimics
natural vision and avoids hyperpixelation.

There has been considerable improvement in (1), but (2)
still operates. For a simple demonstration, try watching
a DVD on an LCD vs CRT.

-- Robert

"chrisv" wrote in message
...

David Schwartz wrote:

Unless you need resolution over 1280x1024 or need a ridiculously large
viewing angle, there are LCDs that serve perfectly for both graphics
editing
and games. For example, the NEC 2010X is totally suitable to both
applications.

I just don't like the fact that they are optimized for one resolution.
I like to be able to change resolutions without suffering large
display-quality degradation.

Depending on how you set them, you can get them to degrade at least
reasonably nicely. But yeah, you want to stick with the native resolution if
you can possibly do it.

DS

On 29 Aug 2005 16:58:42 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:


George Macdonald wrote:
On 29 Aug 2005 07:33:07 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005 06:36:43 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:

George Macdonald wrote:
On 26 Aug 2005 07:37:06 -0700, "Robert Myers" wrote:


No matter what power management trickery does for you most of the time,
you've got to be able to cool the thing when it's operating at peak
performance.

Well we know that Intel stubbed its toes there at 4GHz and while the end of
scaling seems to be accepted as imminent, it's not clear how far other mfrs
can go, nor in what time scale. What I'm talking about is also more than
what we normally think of as power management - more like distributed
dynamic adaptive clocks - there may be a better term for that. 100% load
is difficult to categorize there and of course "clock rate" becomes
meaningless as a performance indicator.

AMD has said that it intends to continue to push clock speeds on single
core CPUs and its current offerings do not suffer anywhere near the same
heat stress as Intel's even at "100% load"; if AMD can get to 4GHz, and
maybe a bit beyond with 65nm, they are quite well positioned. All I'm
saying is that I'm not ready to swallow all of Intel's latest market-speak
on power/watt as a new metric for measuring CPU effectiveness. They
certainly tried to get too far up the slippery slope too quickly - it still
remains to be seen where the real limits are and which technology makes a
difference.

Let's not get into another Intel/AMD round. As it stands now, Intel is
likely to put its efforts at pushing single thread performance into
Itanium. Who knows how long that emphasis will last.

It was an honest and *correct* comment on Intel's technology choices - no
need to have any "round" of anything... and certainly not about Itanium.

Translation: Intel isn't likely to want to play. That may have no
bearing on AMD's decision-making whatsoever, but, if AMD wants to go
after x86 users with need for single-thread performance, I suspect they
will have the market all to themselves. The gamers who have
historically carried users hungry for single-threaded performance will
all have moved to multi-core machines because that's where they'll be
getting the best performance because all of the software will have been
rewritten for mulitple cores. IBM will stay in the game because IBM
wants to keep Power ahead of Itanium on SpecFP, and the x86 chips
you'll be looking to buy, if they're available, will be priced like
Power5, or whatever it is by then. You know, that monopoly thing.

Hmm, and you you said you didn't want to get into another "Intel/AMD"
round... and yet, there you go again. I was only stating a documneted
acknowledged fact - your prognostications are not relevant.

The game makers have already stated that they don't expect to get much out
of multi-core - it looks to me single high-speed core is what is needed
there for a (long) while yet. Hell, dual CPUs have been available for long
enough and they have not tweaked any gaming interest.

I don't think the market is going to be there to pay for the kind of
workhorse you say you need. Power consumption is a huge economic
consideration in HPC: as it stands now, it doesn't pay to run clusters
more than about 3 years because it is more expensive to pay for the
power to continue running them than it is to pay for replacements that
save power.

I don't need a super-computer - I want the fastest PC I can get for a
price-point which is usually a notch back from the very highest
clock-speed, not some compromised thing which fits a marketing strategy for
peoples' living rooms.


My explanation as to why the other usual customers for single-threaded
performance won't be there in large numbers, either.

So far I haven't seen an "explanation" for anything here... other than a
blind willingness to follow the latest Intel marketing angle.

A different programming paradigm/style is not going to help them -
expectation of success is not obviously better than that of new
semiconductor tweaks, or even technology, which allows another 100x speed
ramp over 10 years or so coming along. When I hear talk of new compiler
technology to assist here, I'm naturally skeptical, based on past
experiences.

Well sure. The compiler first has to reverse engineer the control and
dataflow graph that's been obscured by the programmer and the
sequential language with bolted-on parallelism that was used. If you
could identify the critical path, you'd know what to do, but, even for
very repetitive calculations, the critical path that is optimized is at
best a guess.

It's not static - compilers don't have the right info for the job... and
compiler-compilers won't do it either.

That's why you do profiling.

It makes me wonder sometimes when you spout some buzzword like that as
though it is known to work well for all general purpose code working on all
possible data sets.shrug People who use compilers know this.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald