|
Yeah, I think I might've mentioned that. Point is it's a catch-all term, but in context they seem to be clearly talking about what you might generally call advertising. Otherwise it would read a lot more plainly as "do not use our internal product codes" with no ifs and buts about it. That and that you can search Haswell and get search results to product pages anywhere that sells it.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Oddball question about old rear end Intel CPU but... According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_D_microprocessors The Pentium D 960 came in 2 steppings. C1 and D0 with the C1 at 130W and the D0 at 95W making the D0 more desirable. However, I'm unable to confirm if these wattages/stepping are accurate on wikipdeia. I couldn't confirm on Intel ARK. http://ark.intel.com/products/series/20864/Intel-Pentium-D-Processor-900-Series Anyone know if wikipedia is right or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Oddball question about old rear end Intel CPU but... Articles relating to Intel's announcement of the lower power consumption appear to support it: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060615113237.html and this Tom's Hardware forum discussion also indicated the relevant s Specs: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/188276-28-quot-intel-lower-pentium-power-consumption-quot Additionally, while that link to the Intel Ark site doesn't specifically give the wattages, it does indirectly indicate that the D0 spec is using less energy as it ha a lower Tcase temperature, via the Package Specifications section: Intel Ark posted:TCASE C1=68.6°C, D0=63.4°C
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
^^^ Thanks ^^^ I might just spring for a cheap Pentium D 945 which only came in a 95W stepping and can be had for less than the cost of dinner. The 95W 960's seem to be non existent on the open market.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:^^^ Thanks ^^^
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:^^^ Thanks ^^^ Do not pay money for a Pentium 4 in TYOOL 2014. P4s aren't worth their weight in poop. A Core 2 Duo E6300 is faster than a 945, uses 65W, fits the same socket IIRC (check motherboard compatibility of course), and seems to cost about the same as a 945 on ebay. A C2D E6600 or better will blow the 945 away, and I easily found an E6600 listed under $10. e: f,b
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:^^^ Thanks ^^^ presler 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
I am morbidly curious about this Pentium D search
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
I've been out of the upgrade loop for a long time, mainly because I use my computer mainly for work anymore and most things I could probably still do on a Pentium 4 or something. I bought this i7 860 (Lynnfield) back when it was the best you could get for money, about 4-5 years ago. I tried reading up on current technology but was murdered by buzzwords. It seems to me that all Intel is doing right now is die-shrinking and higher integration in favor of cutting costs and making more energy efficient CPUs? Am I correct with this assessment? I feel I'll get another few years out of this computer at this rate, I see no reason to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Do not pay money for a Pentium 4 in TYOOL 2014. P4s aren't worth their weight in poop. go3 posted:I am morbidly curious about this Pentium D search Its a Dell Optiplex GX620. Super clean and I just love keeping it around. However I'm reading mixed results about putting a C2D in it. But I mean for $10 I'd try it for kicks if it hasn't been documented as does-not-work not just officially not supported.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Police Automaton posted:I bought this i7 860 (Lynnfield) back when it was the best you could get for money, about 4-5 years ago. I tried reading up on current technology but was murdered by buzzwords. It seems to me that all Intel is doing right now is die-shrinking and higher integration in favor of cutting costs and making more energy efficient CPUs? Am I correct with this assessment? I feel I'll get another few years out of this computer at this rate, I see no reason to upgrade. You are sort of correct, but you may have gotten a mistaken impression from people who whine if Intel doesn't deliver huge performance gains every year. They have been focused more on power and better integrated video recently, since the market keeps shifting further towards portables, but that hasn't stopped them from delivering at least 5% desktop CPU performance gain every generation, and sometimes lots more (Sandy Bridge, two generations after yours, was a huge leap). Also, there have been a lot of generations between then and now, so the incremental changes add up. Intel's current ~$300 chip is the i7-4770K and it eats the i7-860 for lunch: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/108?vs=836 That said, it doesn't really matter how much better the 4770 is if you don't feel a need to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Going back to the Pentium D discussion, I tried to replace the dog-slow Pentium D 2.8 in my GF's Dell Dimension(loving BTX grrr) with an E6600 C2D and it was a no- go. It SHOULD have worked, being a 945 chipset and all, but Dell must have BIOS-locked the drat thing. An E2180 didn't work either, so I dug deep into my box of obsolete processors and stuck a P-D945 (3.4ghz) in it, which is a wonderful room heater but still amazingly sluggish considering it's clock speed. I highly recommend not spending a nickel on anything Netburst- related. Vvvvvv For six bucks, I'd have probably done the same, I like upgrading old poo poo myself, but the results were so disappointing 
JnnyThndrs fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
^^^ Well I bought a D945 for $6 shipped. I get a 20% clock boost, 100% cache increase and a 27% heat decrease. I mean the box isn't worth throwing out and I use it on occasion to scan drives and do other random odd jobs. With the slower proc its still capable of playing back 1080p mpeg4 without dropping frames and its still a decent web box for mom if I ever came to it (it probably won't). Its just one of those nerd relics you keep around. I'm a stickler for the best-of-the-worst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
I think you're overestimating the performance of Netburst-based CPUs by a significant margin. You're not going to be able to do 1080p video decode without dropped frames unless the machine has working hardware acceleration, in which case you're not using the CPU. 720p would work but not 1080p. When you consider how painfully slow those CPUs are even at basic web browsing and the ready availability of Core 2 Duo machines destined for the recycler it just doesn't make any sense to still have Netburst-based machines sitting around wasting power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
I don't think using that thing would be worth it unless you are on a strict poor person budget. I was there for many years, so from that perspective the 6 dollar upgrade for 25 percent cpu performance that you're probably getting is worth it, but if you have a bit of spending money, then you can get huge performance gains from the cheapest of modern Intel chips and boards. Keep in mind that any new stuff you buy will be more reliable and covered by warranty. Not to mention that the thing probably sucks up 5 times the juice of a modern chip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Jago posted:I don't think using that thing would be worth it unless you are on a strict poor person budget. I was there for many years, so from that perspective the 6 dollar upgrade for 25 percent cpu performance that you're probably getting is worth it, but if you have a bit of spending money, then you can get huge performance gains from the cheapest of modern Intel chips and boards. Keep in mind that any new stuff you buy will be more reliable and covered by warranty. Not to mention that the thing probably sucks up 5 times the juice of a modern chip. I already have a few C2D systems and my latest is a 4770K. Its not a matter of being 'cheap' per say. Just don't feel like its time to throw the system in the garbage yet. Just like loving around with old tech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Alereon posted:IWhen you consider how painfully slow those CPUs are even at basic web browsing and the ready availability of Core 2 Duo machines destined for the recycler it just doesn't make any sense to still have Netburst-based machines sitting around wasting power. See, that's the thing, I can understand the chip being slow at number-crunching and other hardcore CPU-intensive tasks, but it's just so slow at simple stuff like web browsing. I put a modern 500gb SATA hd in it, bumped the RAM to 2gb of ddr2(plenty for XP) and chucked in a Radeon 5650 and nothing helped, it's intrinsic to the processor/architecture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
JnnyThndrs posted:See, that's the thing, I can understand the chip being slow at number-crunching and other hardcore CPU-intensive tasks, but it's just so slow at simple stuff like web browsing. I put a modern 500gb SATA hd in it, bumped the RAM to 2gb of ddr2(plenty for XP) and chucked in a Radeon 5650 and nothing helped, it's intrinsic to the processor/architecture. And to think these were the standard deployment for our photoshop artists when I was working for EA. That's where I 'acquired' this GX620. Lots of sentimental value (I wasn't an artist though).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Lol I'm probably sitting next to 200 GX620's. People still want them sometimes
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
^^^ GX620s are plenty good for poor people or developing countries. Ok, new topic. So with the LGA775 Xeon pin hack, whats the closest Xeon to a Q9550S? Right now the Q9550S is around $100-120 which makes it a bit unreasonable of an upgrade for one of my other older systems I'm loaning out to a friend(who's a starving artist). The reason I've been looking at the 'S' model is because the rig is a USFF Dell so heat and power are an issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Ok, new topic. So with the LGA775 Xeon pin hack, whats the closest Xeon to a Q9550S? Right now the Q9550S is around $100-120 which makes it a bit unreasonable of an upgrade for one of my other older systems I'm loaning out to a friend(who's a starving artist). The reason I've been looking at the 'S' model is because the rig is a USFF Dell so heat and power are an issue. That was a Yorkfield part so the matching Xeon is a L3360. You also might want to check out the L54* models, they're the low power Harpertown chips. One thing to double check before doing the 775 hack is to make sure the motherboard chipset is compatible and supports the microcode for the Xeon you want to put in there. Unfortunately microcode support is all over the place and sometimes even varies by motherboard model under the same manufacturer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Krailor posted:That was a Yorkfield part so the matching Xeon is a L3360. You also might want to check out the L54* models, they're the low power Harpertown chips. Thanks. I couldn't find any L3360s on ebay so its probably even more obscure than the Q9550S.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Thanks. I couldn't find any L3360s on ebay so its probably even more obscure than the Q9550S. Now that I've been looking at it the Yorkfield chips were all socket 775, even the Xeons, so you wouldn't have to do the mod if you got one of those. You'd only have to mod the socket if you went with a Harpertown 54* Xeon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
In other news, it seems IBM has built a big chip in the hope of kicking Xeon in the nuts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:In other news, it seems IBM has built a big chip in the hope of kicking Xeon in the nuts. Huh. I don't know a lot of the words or concepts in the article, but one of the comments said that operators grumble at Intel's hardware prices, but like the open nature of x86 software. The inverse is true for the IBM architecture: cheaper hardware, fewer and more expensive software options. Is there truth to that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
There's enough weird kernel and driver issues on x86-64, I don't look forward to debugging why hardware falls over when using a less popular architecture and a recently-supported kernel. At the same time though I don't really care what architecture systems run as long as it's fast (relative to cost) and reliable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Huh. I don't think anyone gives a poo poo what arch you run for big data workloads. We just need more and faster cores. I'm at least 2 vms removed from native code.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:In other news, it seems IBM has built a big chip in the hope of kicking Xeon in the nuts. They are going to need to pour a ridiculous amount of money and other support in getting an ecosystem up to support that architecture. Sponsoring compiler development (developers had over a decade to work on x86 compilers), kernel development, etc to even make it remotely worthwhile to consider moving over. No idea how well they'll be able to convince hardware vendors to throw in also; it was already fairly slow to get people to hop onto the co-processor bandwagon, and even then it took AMD and NVIDIA opening up GPUs for it to get any penetration. That said, the article mentions that apparently Altera has some of its guys working on a CAPI implementation/IP they can sell to Stratix users, so at least they've thought about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
While servers are a bunch of voodoo to me, I can appreciate that if IBM, Google and Samsung are together on this it does have some weight behind it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, 230GB/sec memory bandwidth. There are definitely some math/science workloads out there that could utilize that thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
IBM has a bit of an image problem in HPC which they earned by pulling out of a Federally appointment research computing project well into its construction. They need to fix that. They appear to be trying to do just that and their recent partnerships should help. I would appreciate someone more knowledgeable about the specifics here remarking on all that, frankly, I just know it's A Big Deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
movax posted:They are going to need to pour a ridiculous amount of money and other support in getting an ecosystem up to support that architecture. Sponsoring compiler development (developers had over a decade to work on x86 compilers), kernel development, etc to even make it remotely worthwhile to consider moving over. Power's a decade older than x86-64. LLVM, gcc and IBM's XLC already support POWER8, as do recent Linux kernels. It is fun to deal with software that makes assumptions about the environment (I'm on a 64 bit environment! My libraries must be in /lib64!) canyoneer posted:Huh. It certainly isn't generally true that Power hardware is cheaper than the equivalent enterprise Intel hardware. It is true that there is less commercial software for non-x86 hardware, and there is generally a price premium associated with it. Rastor posted:Jesus Christ, 230GB/sec memory bandwidth. There are definitely some math/science workloads out there that could utilize that thing. Yeah. Still, it is a bit less than the top-bin Xeon per-thread (still fantastic per-core.) Agreed posted:IBM has a bit of an image problem in HPC which they earned by pulling out of a Federally appointment research computing project well into its construction. They need to fix that. They appear to be trying to do just that and their recent partnerships should help. I would appreciate someone more knowledgeable about the specifics here remarking on all that, frankly, I just know it's A Big Deal. Yeah, some people got burnt badly on that. Ultimately, there's only a few companies that have the technical and financial resources to put in an effort on exascale systems. A BlueGene/Q is at #3 on the most recent Top 500 list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
The price premium on software in a lot of HPC cases don't really matter because you're going to be paying for the majority of the software in the first place and you're mostly asking the vendor for things like the distributed computing APIs that they support and what sort of APIs are available to check the health of the system (RAS nodes, specifically). This is an awful lot like the general value proposition for "cloud" platforms like Google Compute, Amazon EC2, Rackspace, etc. - you have a basic OS with some tools and such, and you were going to write basically everything in the application layer except the kernel to begin with. This is why companies like Cray / Tera sell their hardware for a premium but provide certain somewhat common POSIX layers that are similar enough to Linux, for example. Most HPC stuff is built around Fortran in practice anyway, and they're not really caring about whether gcc or even icc supports it, it's full on 80s style monolithic one-stop-shop "you're the vendor, I'm paying you for the full stack, bitch" compute business models.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
movax posted:They are going to need to pour a ridiculous amount of money and other support in getting an ecosystem up to support that architecture. Sponsoring compiler development (developers had over a decade to work on x86 compilers), kernel development, etc to even make it remotely worthwhile to consider moving over. Echoing that POWER / PowerPC is over 20 years old. The software ecosystem is mature. To me the key question is how will they do at promoting an open platform this time, given what a mess was made of it the last time. The Apple-IBM-Motorola (AIM) alliance set out to completely replace x86 with PowerPC from the desktop up back in the early 1990s, and tried to recruit a lot of support from many other players too. In hindsight that was an unrealistic goal even if they executed well, but they didn't -- when I think about AIM, phrases like "terrible strategic mistakes", "infighting", and "mediocre CPU designs" are what comes to mind, and none of the three parties was blameless. In the meantime, Intel got ticked off by the AIM propaganda, executed well, and shocked everyone who thought that CISC architectures were destined for the dustbin of history. It never helped the PPC cause that IBM always seemed to treat the more open PowerPC as a way of subsidizing their IBM-proprietary POWER CPU designs. They'd better be doing a great job of convincing everybody involved that this is a real long-term commitment to being much more open with their POWER designs, or they aren't likely to get too much traction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
PCjr sidecar posted:It is fun to deal with software that makes assumptions about the environment (I'm on a 64 bit environment! My libraries must be in /lib64!) This is kind of the fault of the FHS for not specifying anything except for Linux (and being unclear for Linux at that). Also, I think Debian-based distros ignore that part of the standard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
So is it just lack of competition from AMD that's making it not worth upgrading CPUs these days? Is it the lack of software needs? I mean, my 2600k and radeon 6870s still do spectacularly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Both, from a CPU standpoint. From a GPU standpoint it's still dependent on what you're playing, how it's set, and what you're showing it on when you play it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Surprised to see so many Power guys, how many of work on powersystems on a daily-basis?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
I know a few Powermen but they mostly hang out in their cadmium deposit except when they're out getting shitfaced drunk
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Apparently Asus is planning to break Intel's Z97 embargo and ship its motherboards tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 04:27
|
|