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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:18:15 +0000, borolad wrote:
....best argument yet, from a leftist-loon. -- Keith |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:16:14 -0500, willbill wrote:
gaffo wrote: .... 64-bit will remain irrelvant for another 5 yrs. (or more). AMD is there already, and now even the 800 pound gorilla (Intel, now down to 700 and still losing) soon will be ....haviong lost at *least* 100lbs on Itanic. so "irrelvant" is *not* accurate, especially given your "5 yrs (or more)" addon 64b is relevant now, and will become more so. THe "line" really isn't 4GB, but more like 3GB where 64b addressing becomes "interesting. Add the other enhancements (and compatability) that Intel failed to notice in favor of attempting to lock users into Itanic... imo min/max of 12/30 *months* is more likely for 64-bit to become the new standard in pc's Perhaps. Again, the real number is 2GB, not 4GB. WHen will that become "standard"? Memory is rather expensive right now (perhaps because it can be used?). In a year? otoh, 32 bits *is* likely to still be usable 5+ yrs from now on 90+% of all pc's. maybe even 100% Hell, a P5 is good enough for 90% of the desktops. Are people going to upgrade these antiques to a P4? I know I skipped from the K6 family to the K8 because I didn't want to upgrade again soon. bill p.s. how many "bits" was the IBM 8088 pc in 1983? Sixteen frankly i've forgotten, but my guess is 8 (or at most 16) It was by any definition a 16 bit processor, though had an 8bit bus. It was identical to the 8086, other than the bus (8bs. 16b) and prefetch queue (4B vs. 6B). The 80186 and 80188 started out as identical dies, with a bond-out option. -- Keith |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Look at AGP, you might have thought, a year ago that you'd
buy, for example, a Radeon 9500 video card and upgrade to a Radeon xxxx in two years time perhaps. But, of course, AGP is now being replaced by PCI Express, so you can't do it. I can't imagine AGP entirely disappearing within a year or two. There will still be a big market for AGP upgrade cards in the near future. Heck, you can still buy a GeForce 5200 or Radeon 9200 in PCI. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ΈτΆσ - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``' ΈτΆσ - Cull the O/T ****e '``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:54:40 GMT, "John Fryatt"
wrote: snip Look at AGP, you might have thought, a year ago that you'd buy, for example, a Radeon 9500 video card and upgrade to a Radeon xxxx in two years time perhaps. But, of course, AGP is now being replaced by PCI Express, so you can't do it. Similarly with processors, chances are you'd need a new motherboard anyway to make use of new generations of CPU. Not true. according to that 2-year plan, one year has elapsed. There are still new AGP models to come, for example nVida 6n00 series, and other lesser alternatives should remain in the market for at least a few more years... today you can even find a new Geforce2, why assume today's contemporary cards will disappear any faster? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
keith wrote:
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:16:14 -0500, willbill wrote: gaffo wrote: .... 64-bit will remain irrelvant for another 5 yrs. (or more). AMD is there already, and now even the 800 pound gorilla (Intel, now down to 700 and still losing) soon will be ....haviong lost at *least* 100lbs on Itanic. agreed and smiling. snip otoh, 32 bits *is* likely to still be usable 5+ yrs from now on 90+% of all pc's. maybe even 100% Hell, a P5 is good enough for 90% of the desktops. Are people going to upgrade these antiques to a P4? I know I skipped from the K6 family me too to the K8 because I didn't want to upgrade again soon. again, me too i find it interesting that PC stuff is finally slowing down, at least a bit one couldn't go 5 years in the 80's/90's without having to get a new pc. that's no longer true p.s. how many "bits" was the IBM 8088 pc in 1983? Sixteen wasn't the 8088 8 bits? whereas the 8086 was 16 bits? frankly i've forgotten, but my guess is 8 (or at most 16) It was by any definition a 16 bit processor, though had an 8bit bus. therein is **the** issue are we talking about the bus or what? It was identical to the 8086, other than the bus (8bs. 16b) and prefetch queue (4B vs. 6B). The 80186 and 80188 started out as identical dies, with a bond-out option. thank you for your response this "bit" stuff gets confusing to me. are we talking about the bus or what? anyhow and btw, aside from the crappy ide/floppy connector layout on the s2875s, it's a typical/excellent Tyan mobo (at least in my experience). i was surprised that you spent the extra bucks for a 144 (i got a 142) it'll be interesting so see what we can go to when the 9 micron Opterons show up in the near future not to mention if Tyan will offer a bios update that will permit using one of the new dual core Opteron cpu's on the s2875s bill |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Keith wrote:
[WillBill wrote] how many "bits" was the IBM 8088 pc in 1983? Sixteen frankly i've forgotten, but my guess is 8 (or at most 16) It was by any definition a 16 bit processor, though had an 8bit bus. It was identical to the 8086, other than the bus (8bs. 16b) and prefetch queue (4B vs. 6B). It's an interesting question ... though not as interesting as it was in 1983. I used to have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the "bittedness" of CPUs that went something like this: The 8088 had an 8-bit external data bus, 16-bit general-purpose registers, 16-bit stack pointer, and 20-bit addressing range (being a bit generous, considering the segmented addressing model). Taking an average of those four gives 15 bits. Near enough. The 8086 was the same apart from the 16-bit data bus (and, yes, the longer instruction prefetch queue - I'd forgotten about that) so let's call it 17 bits. Compare that with the Z80 (8+16[1]+16+16=14 bits) the 6502 beloved of Apple II and PET user (8+8+8+16=10 bits) and the 68000 (32+32+32+24=30 bits). Considering that these chips were all available when the PC was designed: I know which chip *I'd* have used! Intel didn't manage to beat that 30-bit value until the '386 made it up to 32. [1] That's counting HL as a 16-bit GP register, which some might say was cheating. The Z80's accumulator was 8 bits, and counting that instead would give an overall "bittedness" of 12. Cheers, Daniel. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
willbill wrote: keith wrote: On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:16:14 -0500, willbill wrote: gaffo wrote: .... 64-bit will remain irrelvant for another 5 yrs. (or more). Not quite. Expect to see great 64 bit games in '05. Imo we will also probably see 64 bit Photoshop video editing software, CAD, and other applications in '05. AMD is there already, and now even the 800 pound gorilla (Intel, now down to 700 and still losing) soon will be ....haviong lost at *least* 100lbs on Itanic. agreed and smiling. snip otoh, 32 bits *is* likely to still be usable A record player that you crank up by hand that doesn't use electricity is still usable, but doesn't provide the same listening experience as modern hifi equipment. 5+ yrs from now on 90+% of all pc's. maybe even 100% Hell, a P5 is good enough for 90% of the desktops. Are people going to upgrade these antiques to a P4? I know I skipped from the K6 family me too to the K8 because I didn't want to upgrade again soon. again, me too i find it interesting that PC stuff is finally slowing down, at least a bit one couldn't go 5 years in the 80's/90's without having to get a new pc. that's no longer true PCs were phenomenally expensive then, especially if you adjust for inflation. Adjusting for inflation, they were probably 8 or more times what an average pc costs now. p.s. how many "bits" was the IBM 8088 pc in 1983? Sixteen wasn't the 8088 8 bits? whereas the 8086 was 16 bits? frankly i've forgotten, but my guess is 8 (or at most 16) It was by any definition a 16 bit processor, though had an 8bit bus. therein is **the** issue are we talking about the bus or what? It was identical to the 8086, other than the bus (8bs. 16b) and prefetch queue (4B vs. 6B). The 80186 and 80188 started out as identical dies, with a bond-out option. thank you for your response this "bit" stuff gets confusing to me. are we talking about the bus or what? anyhow and btw, aside from the crappy ide/floppy connector layout on the s2875s, it's a typical/excellent Tyan mobo (at least in my experience). i was surprised that you spent the extra bucks for a 144 (i got a 142) it'll be interesting so see what we can go to when the 9 micron Opterons show up in the near future not to mention if Tyan will offer a bios update that will permit using one of the new dual core Opteron cpu's on the s2875s bill |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Advice/Suggestion/Info CPU comparison Athlon64 v P4 | Bruce M. Whealton | General | 1 | August 27th 04 05:15 PM |
Worth getting Barton 2500 now that Athlon64 is here? | Steve Wolfe | General | 22 | August 23rd 04 11:30 PM |
CPU barton v thoroughbred | chris | General | 2 | July 13th 04 10:49 PM |
Overclocked 2500 Barton to 3200 using my old Crucial 2100 DDR | [email protected] | General | 5 | January 18th 04 09:01 AM |
XP2500 Barton or XP2600 Barton? | As mellow as a horse | General | 1 | December 11th 03 09:25 PM |