mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware

View Poll Results: Will Intel or AMD make a processor in the next five years that's faster than 4GHz at stock?
Yes, I think so. 20 76.92%
No, I don't think so. 4 15.38%
Gigahertz, what's that? 0 0%
Moore's law is about to die a horrible death. 2 7.69%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-03-29, 18:53   #34
joblack
 
joblack's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
n00bville

10110101012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Historian View Post
Most of them aren't CPU intensive, though. I have 54 processes going, but the CPU Usage is almost always below 5% when my DC programs are turned off.
Sure most processes are sleeping (mean they are waiting for a user input or some data from a harddisk/nic) ...
joblack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-29, 19:17   #35
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

3·2,473 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Historian View Post
I was speaking in the general case. Of course, there are going to be some exceptions.
Hey moron. Your bold assertion made NO allowance for exceptions.
The rest of us can read.



Quote:
Both a friend of mine and a distant relative work for Intel, so I do have a bit of inside info. Also, I have a big motive to know what's going on in there since I have several thousand shares of Intel stock.

Horseshit. You are just trying to cover your ass and trying to
imply that you know something that others do not. If your soi-dissant
"friend" and "relative" are conveying inside Intel information, then they
are most assuredly breaking insider trading laws.

<plonk>
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-29, 20:33   #36
Historian
 
Historian's Avatar
 
Mar 2010

43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Hey moron. Your bold assertion made NO allowance for exceptions.
The rest of us can read.
...
If your soi-dissant
"friend" and "relative"
The exceptions are understood; nobody else seemed to mind that statement. BTW, what's "soi-dissant"? It's spelled with one s, not two:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/soi-disant

Are you too lazy or retarded to use your spell checker today?

Quote:
Horseshit.
I thought this forum was supposed to be kid friendly? Whatever, I can care less whether or not you shut the fuck up* because you are now the first person to be on my ignore list.

Quote:
You are just trying to cover your ass and trying to
imply that you know something that others do not. If your soi-dissant
"friend" and "relative" are conveying inside Intel information, then they
are most assuredly breaking insider trading laws.
I don't even know why I'm even bothering to respond to this, but they haven't given me specific information like exact clock speeds for future processors and release dates; they've just given me a general overview of how things are going. Besides, if I really did want to bullshit things, I would have said that I am a current or former employee there, and I'm not.

*if I'm banned for that, so be it. Maybe Silverman is the one rotten apple that spoils the rest, but this site doesn't seem to be too friendly to newbies and people who're just trying to express their opinions.

edit: Just for clarification, when I said that "I do have a bit of inside info", I don't mean that I know their trade secrets or know what products are going to be released and when. I meant that the information I know is public but not well known among people who are not insiders.

Last fiddled with by Historian on 2010-03-29 at 20:54
Historian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-29, 21:12   #37
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

11111011100102 Posts
Default

In inverse order. Colour formatting mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Hey moron. Your bold assertion made NO allowance for exceptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Historian View Post
I was speaking in the general case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
What compels people to make dogmatic statements about a technical subject in which they are relatively ignorant??

Whether more cores is better depends upon many factors,
and the answer iS NOT always yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Historian View Post
Are 2 cores better than one? Yes.
Are 4 cores better than 2? Yes.
Are 6 cores better than 4? Probably not, for most users.
Are 8 cores better than 6? No, unless you're running a server.

For most people, the law of diminishing returns starts to kick in above 4 cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Historian View Post
For 99% of people, there's little to no difference between 4 and 6 cores because most programs aren't multi-threaded.
As you will note Historian said 99% of people initially and has continually used "most". He was not specifically referring to forum users.

Sorry Bob, you lose.

Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 2010-03-29 at 21:13
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-29, 21:22   #38
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Historian,

Please stop trading insults with Silverman for a while. Please read my latest post in the "Feindlich, Widerlich, Abstoßend, Undiplomatisch?" thread in Soap Box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Historian View Post
you are now the first person to be on my ignore list.
That's a really good idea.

After I put the most irritating people on my ignore list, my forum experience became more enjoyable. There are hundreds of worthwhile people here; don't overlook them on account of your irritation with a few.

Quote:
I don't even know why I'm even bothering to respond to this,
It's because you're letting your irritation with Silverman override your sense of whether you're contributing anything useful.

Quote:
Maybe Silverman is the one rotten apple that spoils the rest,
You have control over your own reactions to Silverman (indeed, over whether or not you even see his posts). You don't have control over Silverman himself.

Quote:
but this site doesn't seem to be too friendly to newbies and people who're just trying to express their opinions.
You're drawing a wrong conclusion because of your irritation with Silverman. Don't discard the benefits of this forum on account of just another member or two -- that you can add to your ignore list, just as I've put a few folks on mine.
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-03-29, 21:50   #39
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
May 2003
Down not across

271216 Posts
Default

Ok guys, settle down. Chill out, or cut some slack, or kiss and make up, or whatever the current vernacular might be.

Misinterpretation of the others' statements is no excuse for having blazing rows in public. Do waht you want as long as you don't frighten the horses so take it to PM if you really want to fight.


Paul

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2010-03-29 at 21:52
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-03, 21:48   #40
alexhiggins732
 
Mar 2010
Brick, NJ

67 Posts
Default Only four programs !?!

Has no one actually watches people work on computers? I spent a few years doing PC support and this is just dead wrong!!

Factoring while generally dismissed above as special case is not really a special case. To the contrary, while this is the special case for users of this forum that special case can be transformed into a magnitude of other special cases.

Developers using MS products will often have several projects open in Visual Studio 2003, 2005, 2008, Front Page, Web Expressions, or what have you. Each instance on its own can eat up all the processing power on a PC, especially when dealing with large projects.

Graphic designer face the same with programs like Photo Shop, Corel, Flash, etc. You can find many such jobs with similar situations. If you work in a office, take a walks around and just check out how many application people have open in their task bar.

And of course lets not forget about all of the gamers, enterprises, scientists, students, etc...

While a portion of users may only run three to four apps, I would say this is not the general case and varies by user.

For example, I currently have 3 instances of Outlook open (which hangs my pc every 10 minutes checking for new mail), 8 Windows explorer windows, 3 command prompts, 47 instances of Notepad, 2 Instances of windows calculator, Windows Task Manager, 5 instances of Firefox (each with 5-20+ tabs open - which is starting to become a resource hog), two instances of IE, 7 visual studio 2008 project, 4 Visual studio 2005 projects, 3 Visual Studio 2003 projects, An FTP Client, SVN Client, SQL 2008 and 2005 and 2000 Enterprise Manger, 4 Instances of Microsoft Word, 3 Instances of adobe reader, NotePad++.

Then in the background, the AV client, Anti-Spam, Windows Update Bits, and Firefox and Google Toolbar constantly querying the web for something.

Then on the factoring side I running ECM curves on two cores for 512+ bit number and poly selection on a C162.

Oh did I forget to mention that I have 5 terminal sessions open to different servers at remote locations and there 8 different computers running in my house (My laptop, my desktop, my wife's desktop, my brother in laws laptop, my son's, the family computer, my web server and a back up laptop) which we all constantly use and all of which could use more processing power.

All of these computers/server get bogged out rather regularly.

Bottom line is every needs more processing power, not just users of this forum.
alexhiggins732 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-04, 00:02   #41
CADavis
 
CADavis's Avatar
 
Jul 2005
Des Moines, Iowa, USA

2528 Posts
Default

<feed troll>
wow you are right, you are definitely the average user!
</feed troll>
CADavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-04, 03:31   #42
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

22×5×293 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Historian View Post
Are 2 cores better than one? Yes.
Are 4 cores better than 2? Yes.
Are 6 cores better than 4? Probably not, for most users.
Are 8 cores better than 6? No, unless you're running a server.

For most people, the law of diminishing returns starts to kick in above 4 cores. Think about it, if it were not for DC projects, how often do you actually need to use more than 4 cores? It's pretty rare for people to have more than 4 programs running at once.
Frankly, I think that the benefit to typical users drops off rapidly after the second core. 1 slow core (netbook) => 1 fast core (P4) is an improvement, 1 fast core => 2 fast cores is also an improvement -- 1 core for whatever you're doing, plus one core to run all the background stuff. But a third (Phenom II) or fourth... not so much.

Of course there are power users who want more, and I expect ordinary users will eventually see benefit from manycore computers as the power becomes available. But we're just not there yet.
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-04, 18:54   #43
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

180910 Posts
Default

The question is not how many windows you have open at once but how many programs you have *running* at once. Most people don't actually use more than one program at once.

Background virus checkers etc should run at low priority. And a system that ran the current foreground window at higher priority than other windows would deal with Outlook checking for mail etc.

The big problem is that lazy programmers ignore performance and write code that runs amazingly slowly. But it's often disk or network I/O bound so a faster CPU won't help.

Chris K
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-04-04, 22:46   #44
joblack
 
joblack's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
n00bville

52·29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris2be8 View Post

The big problem is that lazy programmers ignore performance and write code that runs amazingly slowly. But it's often disk or network I/O bound so a faster CPU won't help.

Chris K
Yeah, most people but not the special kind of breed we're representing *hehe* ...

Three years ago I had a very fast Celeron CPU and it was always overworked (and I wasn't using Prime95 in that time). With the upgrade to a quad Q6600 I was very happy (costs were around 280 Euro).

I can't get enough cpu power and memory ... unlike most of the people.
joblack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PSP: 10 years old! Citrix Prime Sierpinski Project 1 2013-11-08 07:35
AMD Phenom II X4 965 3.4Ghz 125W temps RickC Hardware 7 2010-09-12 05:25
4GHz for $400... Xyzzy Hardware 7 2004-06-16 22:10
Compaq ML370 G3 server 2x+2,4GHz reboot piotrkonarski Hardware 11 2004-03-03 12:16
Do we need a "Buy/Sell" forum? Xyzzy Lounge 6 2002-10-24 06:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:20.

Fri Jun 5 17:20:49 UTC 2020 up 72 days, 14:53, 1 user, load averages: 1.25, 1.47, 1.49

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.