Intel drops HyperThreading

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.09.01.03.22.30.264801@att.bizzzz...

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:25:47 -0400, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:

>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, CJT wrote:

>>> I guess you don't remember the power shortages in California a few years
>>> back, which were credited in part to the rapid increase in computer use.

>> The main cause for the power problems turned out to be Enron's fraud.

> No, the main cause for both was government incompetence.

There is enough blame to go around.

What I can't stand though is when the government replaces one set of
regulations with another, and then when the new regulations screw everything
up, they blame it on the "deregulation". Here's a clue: if it's illegal to
make long-term contracts, the market is regulated.

The laws were designed to make the market more dynamic. They succeeded
beyond the wildest dreams of those who drafted them.

DS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:42:07 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.09.01.03.22.30.264801@att.bizzzz...
>
>major snip<
>>> The main cause for the power problems turned out to be Enron's fraud.
>
>> No, the main cause for both was government incompetence.
>
> There is enough blame to go around.
>
> What I can't stand though is when the government replaces one set of
> regulations with another, and then when the new regulations screw everything
> up, they blame it on the "deregulation". Here's a clue: if it's illegal to
> make long-term contracts, the market is regulated.
>
> The laws were designed to make the market more dynamic. They succeeded
> beyond the wildest dreams of those who drafted them.
>
> DS

All this talk about power consumption, and power grids kind of makes a
person think. How many gallons of gasoline does it take to power up a
generator for all these news casters covering Katrina? Of those
generators how much of them are diesel, how does this effect global
warming? How much charge can you get out of a 5 dollar gallon of gasoline
to charge your laptop battery?

Why in the world do we always get so much off topic, I apologize for the
current rant. I just heard about how Cindy Sheehan blames Katrina on Bush,
also heard about some Democrats doing the same thing.
http://www.steveyuhas.com/columns/yuhas_20050831.htm

Even some European countries are using the blame game. Another thing that
gets me, in all the Katrina pictures is you see miles of cars, why didn't
they leave in the first place? If you left you would of had your car, but
now its ten feet under water. Even if you ran out of gas, or did not have
any money you might of been able to get help, as the police were helping
stranded motorists up to the very end.

One gets dizzy trying to keep up with all the hype, blame gas prices on
Bush, but refuse to build refineries, refuse to drill for oil in north
shore. Liberals can not have it both ways, I don't agree with everything
Bush does, or the liberals. But what happened to common sense? What
happens when the next Hurricane comes along, who is going to pick up the
next tab, how many more do we have to pay for. Yes I feel bad for some of
the folks, but are we going to have to do this again?

I have not heard of other countries stepping up and offering help, where
are the French, and the Germans? After all New Orleans was settled by the
French, you would think they would want to help, just for the names sake.

I am also seeing the footings of blame for the dikes failure being placed
on the Republicans, which will then result in blaming the flooding in New
Orleans on the Republicans, because they did not spend the billions of
dollars to fix the dikes in the first place. It is just a matter of weeks
before this unfolds, wait and see.

Now tell me if I am wrong in this logic, if global warming is happening
which I personally believe, no I don't blame Bush, I blame everyone and
especially the SUV driving liberals. If I had a dime for every SUV with a
Gore, or Clinton, or Kerry bumper sticker I would be able to buy gasoline
for my Honda motorcycle for a year; even at five dollars a gallon. Back to
logic, say they fix the dikes that can withstand a category 5 hurricane,
say global warming is causing worse and worse storms, isn't it a matter of
time before the quantity, or the magnitude of the storms are more powerful
then the dikes can handle?

Ok; like I said I apologize for this rant, I don't think that computers,
or crt's are more worse on increasing global warming, or power usage then
cars, or cell towers. I do think its kind of funny, that one of the most
reliable ways to get information into the stricken zone's was with ham
radio's. I also thought it was funny, that some people were unable to get
gas because they did not have power to the pumps. You would of thought
that if you owned a store you might want to invest in a generator, or even
a simple hand driven pump. If you did that business might be pretty good
about now. What someone needs to do is make a generator that is fueled by
wood, and debris, just put it into a hurricane area, feed it all the
trash, have it generate power, if you run out of debris use gas, or
something else, put a filter on it to filter the air, you have almost a
cheap source of power generation.

Gnu_Raiz

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:35:51 +0000, CJT wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:26:02 +0000, CJT wrote:
>>
>>
>>>keith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:13:19 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4313A54A.8020300@prodigy.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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!
>>
>>
>> I see you've now admitted that you've been talking out your ass. Thank
>> you.
>>
> You see nothing.

I see your bare ass running away with your tail between your leggs. It's
not a pretty sight, but do come back when you want to be spanked again.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:13:13 +0000, Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is no disputing matters of taste. I very much prefer
>> the appearance of text on a CRT over the appearance of text
>> on an LCD array.
>
> Entirely true. "De gustibus non est disputandam [tametsi peccatum
> est]" There's no disputing taste [even when it's wrong]

I prefer text on LCDs. I *much* prefer line graphics (timing charts,
schematics, etc.) on LCDs. I also prefer not spending $700-$1000 on
replacements for existing CRTs ($400 new). Maybe if I were to replace
both at the same time...

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Rob Stow" <rob.stow@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:3TiRe.345420$s54.319602@pd7tw2no...
>
>
>>Current LCD monitors being pitched at gamers have 5 or 8 ms response times
>>and you pay about a 15% premium over a 12 ms monitor.
>
>
> Since your frame rate is about 60 frames per second, it's hard to
> imagine a response time better than 10mS makes any noticeable difference. I
> would imagine it would look a bit better to blur one frame at least slightly
> into the next than to shift instantaneously 60 times per second.

I'm not a gamer but I do watch a lot of video. I notice ghosting
on my two year old 25 ms monitor, but not on my gf's much newer
and faster monitor.

On my monitor the slight ghosting is only a mild annoyance when
watching something short like a music video, but I can't stand it
if I'm trying to watch an entire DVD movie: for that I'll use
the TV.




>
> In any event, I haven't seen noticeable response time issues on any of
> the LCD monitors I've seen manufactured in the past 2 years. That would be
> at least 15 different models, low end to high end, 15 inch to 20 inch.
>
> DS
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:59:36 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:


>Thank you. I take your namecalling and impoliteness as
>a concession that you have nothing better to say. *PLONK*
>
>-- Robert

Take it anyway you like. I won't lose any sleep over what you think
that's for sure.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:10:07 GMT, Rob Stow <rob.stow@shaw.ca> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>> There are also other problems with the very recent (expensive) LCDs which
>> claim to be suitable for photography and have near-sufficiently good
>> response for games, such as full-motion video artifacts. There's a reason
>> that Eizo-Nanao charges an arm & leg for a screen with ~40ms reponse time.
>
>You obviously haven't tried out a reasonably new LCD.

Oh yeah I've tried out and bought several recently.

>My gf has a 19" Samsung with an 12 ms response time. Cost about
>$420 (Canadian) a few weeks ago. No trace of ghosting when
>watching videos (me) or playing games (her).

That's a TN+film screen with 16.2M colors (dithered from 256K) - Samsung's
are reasonably good compared with some others but if you don't think it
stinks for photography (and some other color & image critical tasks),
you're just not a very sophisticated user for those tasks.

> Settling for an
>older Samsung with a 25 ms response time would have saved $40 -
>and you have to look hard these days to find a vendor selling LCD
>monitors with a response time slower than that.

I have a Samsung "25ms" myself and it is *not* "older" - it's a different
technology: PVA == Patterned Vertical Alignment... which gives much better
color rendition and off-angle viewing than TN+film. It also cost a lot
more than a similar-sized TN+film screen. If you want really slow
response, excellent color/image, I've already mentioned Eizo-Nanao - I
suggest you look them up as an example of what can be done image-wise and
is demanded by people who care about color/imaging... and have $$ to match.
In between, there are dozens of expensive LCDs with a ~25ms min. response
and a max which climbs up to and over 100ms.

>Current LCD monitors being pitched at gamers have 5 or 8 ms
>response times and you pay about a 15% premium over a 12 ms monitor.

It's a wee bit more complicated than just minimum response time... though
some gamers are apparently easily parted from their $$. A 16ms flat
response (across the black-gray-white spectrum) is, e.g., preferable to a
panel with 5ms minimum and a 30ms max. The most promising multi-purpose
use technology right now is S-IPS (Super In-Plane Switching), with a
reasonably flat response in the 16-20ms, but there are still some issues to
resolve there too.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:13:23 -0700, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:

>
>"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:3TiRe.345420$s54.319602@pd7tw2no...
>
>> Current LCD monitors being pitched at gamers have 5 or 8 ms response times
>> and you pay about a 15% premium over a 12 ms monitor.
>
> Since your frame rate is about 60 frames per second, it's hard to
>imagine a response time better than 10mS makes any noticeable difference. I
>would imagine it would look a bit better to blur one frame at least slightly
>into the next than to shift instantaneously 60 times per second.

That 5ms is a minimum reponse time from black->white and sometimes includes
the fall-time as well as rise-time... depending on the integrity of the mfr
and their specs. Black->gray and gray->gray times are always much worse
and are extremely important to gamers who often have to deal with shadows
as the first hint of a "threat".

> In any event, I haven't seen noticeable response time issues on any of
>the LCD monitors I've seen manufactured in the past 2 years. That would be
>at least 15 different models, low end to high end, 15 inch to 20 inch.

Then you haven't been doing anything with them which pushes response time.
BTW, until fairly recently the market was segmented such that 15/17" panels
were mostly TN+film and 19"+ were almost all PVA, MVA or IPS; as the
market/technology has evolved we are now seeing 19" TN+film which are
really just pure gaming panels - not much use for anything else.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:17:19 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
<redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Praxiteles Democritus <no@email.here> wrote:
>> The usual stupid assumptions posted by clueless tossers.
>
>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")

LCDs don't really have persistence - that ghosting effect is due to slow
response time of the LC switching and, in general for all LCD technologies,
is especially bad in black->gray and gray->gray transitions. Gamers get
very upset when the shadow hinting at a "threat" is not umm, rendered -
they get shot, fragged, blasted or whatever.🙂

>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.

The trouble is that you cannot get a LCD panel which matches the needs of
modern high speed gaming *and* provides the color/image fidelity required
for good photography and several other imaging sensitive tasks. With
LG-Philips' S-IPS, it's getting close but expensive and not quite there
yet.

Personally I made the switch to a Samsung PVA LCD last November when my old
Nokia CRT went bad but I'm not a gamer and I know that there are some PVA
artifacts which are a bit annoying even on still images - photos can have a
slight silvery Daguerrotype effect in dark areas. FWIW my bet is that
S-IPS (basically In-Plane Switching w. overdrive) is going to win the
battle eventually... unless OLEDs get there first.🙂

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On 31 Aug 2005 05:36:51 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2005 16:58:42 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >

>> 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.
>>
>There are several different issues tangled up here:
>
>1. How much further single-thread performance can be pushed.
>
>2. How much those chips will cost.
>
>3. Whether single-thread chips will dominate gaming.
>
>4. How much of what Intel is doing is pure market-speak.
>
>5. The purported advantage AMD has with respect to "heat stress."
>
>Taking the issues in inverse order:
>
>5. The "heat stress" problems Intel has are the result of having to run
>NetBurst at a higher clock to get comparable performance. The P6 core
>derivatives have plenty of headroom.

Well that's NetBust fer ya! How'd that happen? They didn't know this was
going to happen? They did know but decided to press ahead with a spin
angle on it anyway?... and add HT as a crutch? The "advantage AMD has" is
not purported - it is tangible... palpable even.

>4. For many applications, performance per watt is the figure of merit
>of greatest interest because that will determine how much muscle can be
>packed into a given space. For those who need single-thread
>performance, it isn't a figure of merit that's of interest. If you
>really need single-thread performance, there will always be options, at
>a price
>
>http://www.alienware.com/configurator_pages/Aurora_alx.aspx?SysCode=PC-AURORALX-SLI-D
>
>IOW, if it's *that* important to you right now, all you have to do is
>to get out your checkbook.

That is an extreme example and irrelevant here where most people DIY, among
other reasons. A careful choice of processor performance slot and
components can get very nice single-thread performance, with the obvious
promise of more to come. Now that the heat is (temporarily) off AMD on
single-thread CPUs there is no way of knowing how much they may be holding
back but I still see performace ramps possible for me as prices drop as
introduction of the next speed jump slots in at the top-end... given that
anybody who pays the $$ for the top slot either really needs it or is just
mad.

>3. It may take a while, but there really isn't anywhere else to go.
>The idea of having a separate, specialized physics engine is kind of
>silly because there's no reason why the physics can't be done by
>another CPU core (the solution I really like, actually, is a design
>like Cell, which seems to get the best of both worlds). You're going
>to accuse me of shilling for Intel, but you (or someone else reading
>this) might be interested in
>
>http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/strategy/multicore/index.htm
>
>Scroll down past the marketing bs to "Application Development and
>Performance Resources."

Sorry but I have to hark back to my quote by Honda San: "I want to touch
and hold a better piston, not watch another concept presentation". While
AMD agrees with, and even pre-empted Intel on dual core, they do not appear
to be throwing the baby out with the bath water here... in quite the same
way.

The way that Intel just can't seem to resist the spin bothers me - the
(marketing) tail is wagging the (engineering) dog just a bit too much...
there's a corporate sickness here. The way that you have apparently
latched on to their latest religion from just this past week bothers me
too.<shrug>

>> >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.
>>
>Would you have been happier if I had said "feedback-directed
>optimization?" The compiler can't accurately infer dependencies from
>software written in, say, c. If those ambiguities didn't exist, there
>would still be the problem of determining the hot paths in the
>software. Given an accurate control and data flow graph, it's pretty
>easy to discover the hot paths, and the main reason feedback directed
>optimization doesn't always work well is that there is no accurate
>control and data flow graph to begin with. Even the most unlikely of
>software, like Microsoft Word, turns out to be incredibly repetitive in
>the paths taken through the software.

You already tried the "feedback directed..." one a while back - thanks for
reminding me.🙂 The thing is in a performance-oriented application -- not
MS Word🙂 -- how much computer cycles can you afford to "waste" on
"profiling" the problem data-set at hand before you end up losing out on
the balance of any gain? I'm afraid your "hot paths" are just as likely to
be transient anyway - calling it "easy" just doesn't wash for me.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2005 05:36:51 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >> On 29 Aug 2005 16:58:42 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >There are several different issues tangled up here:
> >
> >1. How much further single-thread performance can be pushed.
> >
> >2. How much those chips will cost.
> >
> >3. Whether single-thread chips will dominate gaming.
> >
> >4. How much of what Intel is doing is pure market-speak.
> >
> >5. The purported advantage AMD has with respect to "heat stress."
> >
> >Taking the issues in inverse order:
> >
> >5. The "heat stress" problems Intel has are the result of having to run
> >NetBurst at a higher clock to get comparable performance. The P6 core
> >derivatives have plenty of headroom.
>
> Well that's NetBust fer ya! How'd that happen? They didn't know this was
> going to happen? They did know but decided to press ahead with a spin
> angle on it anyway?... and add HT as a crutch? The "advantage AMD has" is
> not purported - it is tangible... palpable even.
>
NetBurst may be one of the few things we agree on. Intel's architect
says that he expected eventually to improve the IPC performance of
NetBurst. He also admits that his marching orders were to deliver a
processor with a high clock rate, which he did.

> >4. For many applications, performance per watt is the figure of merit
> >of greatest interest because that will determine how much muscle can be
> >packed into a given space. For those who need single-thread
> >performance, it isn't a figure of merit that's of interest. If you
> >really need single-thread performance, there will always be options, at
> >a price
> >
> >http://www.alienware.com/configurator_pages/Aurora_alx.aspx?SysCode=PC-AURORALX-SLI-D
> >
> >IOW, if it's *that* important to you right now, all you have to do is
> >to get out your checkbook.
>
> That is an extreme example and irrelevant here where most people DIY, among
> other reasons. A careful choice of processor performance slot and
> components can get very nice single-thread performance, with the obvious
> promise of more to come. Now that the heat is (temporarily) off AMD on
> single-thread CPUs there is no way of knowing how much they may be holding
> back but I still see performace ramps possible for me as prices drop as
> introduction of the next speed jump slots in at the top-end... given that
> anybody who pays the $$ for the top slot either really needs it or is just
> mad.
>
It's apparent that you don't really need it.

> >3. It may take a while, but there really isn't anywhere else to go.
> >The idea of having a separate, specialized physics engine is kind of
> >silly because there's no reason why the physics can't be done by
> >another CPU core (the solution I really like, actually, is a design
> >like Cell, which seems to get the best of both worlds). You're going
> >to accuse me of shilling for Intel, but you (or someone else reading
> >this) might be interested in
> >
> >http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/asmo-na/eng/strategy/multicore/index.htm
> >
> >Scroll down past the marketing bs to "Application Development and
> >Performance Resources."
>
> Sorry but I have to hark back to my quote by Honda San: "I want to touch
> and hold a better piston, not watch another concept presentation". While
> AMD agrees with, and even pre-empted Intel on dual core, they do not appear
> to be throwing the baby out with the bath water here... in quite the same
> way.
>
While you are insisting that the world is staying single-threaded, most
of the rest of the world is going to be trying to figure out how to use
multiple threads.

> The way that Intel just can't seem to resist the spin bothers me - the
> (marketing) tail is wagging the (engineering) dog just a bit too much...
> there's a corporate sickness here. The way that you have apparently
> latched on to their latest religion from just this past week bothers me
> too.<shrug>
>
There is no reason for you to make this personal. I haven't latched
onto anybody's religion. Power consumption as an issue for HPC wasn't
invented by Intel and I didn't learn about it from Intel. I didn't
learn about power consumption as an issue for servers from Intel: I
learned about it from google and from people with power and space
constraints. And I have been posting for a long time now about the
inevitable move to more cores as a way to get more performance within
the constraints of what is possible with standard cooling.


> >> >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.
> >>
> >Would you have been happier if I had said "feedback-directed
> >optimization?" The compiler can't accurately infer dependencies from
> >software written in, say, c. If those ambiguities didn't exist, there
> >would still be the problem of determining the hot paths in the
> >software. Given an accurate control and data flow graph, it's pretty
> >easy to discover the hot paths, and the main reason feedback directed
> >optimization doesn't always work well is that there is no accurate
> >control and data flow graph to begin with. Even the most unlikely of
> >software, like Microsoft Word, turns out to be incredibly repetitive in
> >the paths taken through the software.
>
> You already tried the "feedback directed..." one a while back - thanks for
> reminding me.🙂 The thing is in a performance-oriented application -- not
> MS Word🙂 -- how much computer cycles can you afford to "waste" on
> "profiling" the problem data-set at hand before you end up losing out on
> the balance of any gain? I'm afraid your "hot paths" are just as likely to
> be transient anyway - calling it "easy" just doesn't wash for me.
>
I chose MS Word as an example of a particularly challenging
application, because it is. I'm sure there are examples where
profiling doesn't help or helps only if you profile on the actual
problem, but I haven't encountered such a problem. The difficulty,
which you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge, is the
way that software is written.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Gnu_Raiz wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:42:07 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>>"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>>news😛an.2005.09.01.03.22.30.264801@att.bizzzz...
>>
>>major snip<
>>
>>>>The main cause for the power problems turned out to be Enron's fraud.
>>
>>>No, the main cause for both was government incompetence.
>>
>> There is enough blame to go around.
>>
>> What I can't stand though is when the government replaces one set of
>>regulations with another, and then when the new regulations screw everything
>>up, they blame it on the "deregulation". Here's a clue: if it's illegal to
>>make long-term contracts, the market is regulated.
>>
>> The laws were designed to make the market more dynamic. They succeeded
>>beyond the wildest dreams of those who drafted them.
>>
>> DS
>
>
> All this talk about power consumption, and power grids kind of makes a
> person think. How many gallons of gasoline does it take to power up a
> generator for all these news casters covering Katrina? Of those
> generators how much of them are diesel, how does this effect global
> warming? How much charge can you get out of a 5 dollar gallon of gasoline
> to charge your laptop battery?
>
> Why in the world do we always get so much off topic, I apologize for the
> current rant. I just heard about how Cindy Sheehan blames Katrina on Bush,
> also heard about some Democrats doing the same thing.
> http://www.steveyuhas.com/columns/yuhas_20050831.htm

Anyone from New Orleans who wants to play the blame game need
only look in the mirror to find someone to accuse. Its like
someone badly hurt after running a stop light and getting
broadsided: it is impossible not to feel sympathy for him and
equally impossible not to recognize that he has only himself to
blame.

It has been known for hundreds, if not thousands, of years that
that area is regularly battered by hurricanes, yet those people
chose to build their homes and their businesses not only in a
hurricane zone but in areas well below sea level in a hurricane
zone ? It is one thing to gamble on a home or business on the
gulf coast, but to compound the risk by choosing a location 20
feet below sea level is stupid beyond all belief.

I can empathize with but not fully agree with the idea that a
higher degree of risk is acceptable to people tied to the oil
industry in that area, but gambling with your life and everything
you own in order to run a tourist trap or work in a Casino is
simply unfathomable.



>
> Even some European countries are using the blame game. Another thing that
> gets me, in all the Katrina pictures is you see miles of cars, why didn't
> they leave in the first place? If you left you would of had your car, but
> now its ten feet under water. Even if you ran out of gas, or did not have
> any money you might of been able to get help, as the police were helping
> stranded motorists up to the very end.
>
> One gets dizzy trying to keep up with all the hype, blame gas prices on
> Bush, but refuse to build refineries, refuse to drill for oil in north
> shore. Liberals can not have it both ways, I don't agree with everything
> Bush does, or the liberals. But what happened to common sense? What
> happens when the next Hurricane comes along, who is going to pick up the
> next tab, how many more do we have to pay for. Yes I feel bad for some of
> the folks, but are we going to have to do this again?
>
> I have not heard of other countries stepping up and offering help, where
> are the French, and the Germans? After all New Orleans was settled by the
> French, you would think they would want to help, just for the names sake.
>
> I am also seeing the footings of blame for the dikes failure being placed
> on the Republicans, which will then result in blaming the flooding in New
> Orleans on the Republicans, because they did not spend the billions of
> dollars to fix the dikes in the first place. It is just a matter of weeks
> before this unfolds, wait and see.
>
> Now tell me if I am wrong in this logic, if global warming is happening
> which I personally believe, no I don't blame Bush, I blame everyone and
> especially the SUV driving liberals. If I had a dime for every SUV with a
> Gore, or Clinton, or Kerry bumper sticker I would be able to buy gasoline
> for my Honda motorcycle for a year; even at five dollars a gallon. Back to
> logic, say they fix the dikes that can withstand a category 5 hurricane,
> say global warming is causing worse and worse storms, isn't it a matter of
> time before the quantity, or the magnitude of the storms are more powerful
> then the dikes can handle?
>
> Ok; like I said I apologize for this rant, I don't think that computers,
> or crt's are more worse on increasing global warming, or power usage then
> cars, or cell towers. I do think its kind of funny, that one of the most
> reliable ways to get information into the stricken zone's was with ham
> radio's. I also thought it was funny, that some people were unable to get
> gas because they did not have power to the pumps. You would of thought
> that if you owned a store you might want to invest in a generator, or even
> a simple hand driven pump. If you did that business might be pretty good
> about now. What someone needs to do is make a generator that is fueled by
> wood, and debris, just put it into a hurricane area, feed it all the
> trash, have it generate power, if you run out of debris use gas, or
> something else, put a filter on it to filter the air, you have almost a
> cheap source of power generation.
>
> Gnu_Raiz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125575609.833207.12110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > The difficulty,
> > which you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge, is
> the
> > way that software is written.
>
> There will be a great day tomorrow yes there will be glory halleluja
> lookit all them sainted threads springing up in all directions yes sir
> tomorrow afternoon at 3:17PM. ;-)

To reiterate, standard coding techniques don't allow unambiguous
inference of control and dataflow dependencies, and the overwhelming
majority of proposals in the parallel programming thread now running on
comp.arch don't propose to fix that deficiency.

One way or the other, though, this is a hump we have to get over. It
may take an entire generation of single-threaded hackers to die out,
but sooner or later the von neumann bottleneck will be at most a
chapter in a textbook on introductory programming.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125594960.838927.281670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Felger Carbon wrote:
> > > "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1125575609.833207.12110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > The difficulty,
> > > > which you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge,
> is
> > > the
> > > > way that software is written.
> > >
> > > There will be a great day tomorrow yes there will be glory
> halleluja
> > > lookit all them sainted threads springing up in all directions yes
> sir
> > > tomorrow afternoon at 3:17PM. ;-)
> >
> > One way or the other, though, this is a hump we have to get over.
> It
> > may take an entire generation of single-threaded hackers to die out,
> > but sooner or later the von neumann bottleneck will be at most a
> > chapter in a textbook on introductory programming.
>
> Yes, sir! Right around that corner there there's threads galore,
> _tons_ of threads, threads as far as you can see. There'll be a great
> day tomorrow, yes there will. Of course, we have only one thread
> today but that's just temporary.

If you're going to grind this axe, maybe you should sharpen the
messianic expectation to significant concurrency. There are about 500
threads on the machine I'm using, but most of them are just idling. I
have just one application active, and I'm reasonably certain that it's
not single-threaded.

Other than enterprise software like databases and things like HPC codes
essentially running many identical copies of something or other, most
software doesn't exhibit much in the way of meaningful concurrency.
That *will* change. The game boxes are all multiprocessor, and if one
vendor can use that extra muscle to get extra sizzle, everybody else
will have to figure out how to do the same.

Apparently it won't help George, but most people doing numerically
intensive work will be using things like concurrent math kernel
libraries, intel performance primitives, and concurrent versions of
things like blas. It's all coming.

As to the day when the average physics or biology graduate student
writes software with meaningful concurrency without depending on
libraries, that may take a while.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125575609.833207.12110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> The difficulty,
> which you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge, is
the
> way that software is written.

There will be a great day tomorrow yes there will be glory halleluja
lookit all them sainted threads springing up in all directions yes sir
tomorrow afternoon at 3:17PM. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125594960.838927.281670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Felger Carbon wrote:
> > "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1125575609.833207.12110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > The difficulty,
> > > which you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge,
is
> > the
> > > way that software is written.
> >
> > There will be a great day tomorrow yes there will be glory
halleluja
> > lookit all them sainted threads springing up in all directions yes
sir
> > tomorrow afternoon at 3:17PM. ;-)
>
> One way or the other, though, this is a hump we have to get over.
It
> may take an entire generation of single-threaded hackers to die out,
> but sooner or later the von neumann bottleneck will be at most a
> chapter in a textbook on introductory programming.

Yes, sir! Right around that corner there there's threads galore,
_tons_ of threads, threads as far as you can see. There'll be a great
day tomorrow, yes there will. Of course, we have only one thread
today but that's just temporary.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:59:50 -0500, Gnu_Raiz
<Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:42:07 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>>
>> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>> news😛an.2005.09.01.03.22.30.264801@att.bizzzz...
>>
>>major snip<
>>>> The main cause for the power problems turned out to be Enron's fraud.
>>
>>> No, the main cause for both was government incompetence.
>>
>> There is enough blame to go around.
>>
>> What I can't stand though is when the government replaces one set of
>> regulations with another, and then when the new regulations screw everything
>> up, they blame it on the "deregulation". Here's a clue: if it's illegal to
>> make long-term contracts, the market is regulated.
>>
>> The laws were designed to make the market more dynamic. They succeeded
>> beyond the wildest dreams of those who drafted them.
>>
>> DS
>
>All this talk about power consumption, and power grids kind of makes a
>person think. How many gallons of gasoline does it take to power up a
>generator for all these news casters covering Katrina? Of those
>generators how much of them are diesel, how does this effect global
>warming? How much charge can you get out of a 5 dollar gallon of gasoline
>to charge your laptop battery?

The short answer is: "a hell of a lot". For some numbers you can look
at the specs for a low-end Honda generator:

http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/ModelDetail.asp?ModelName=en2500

It has a 2.3 gallon (US) tank and that is supposed to allow the
generator to run for 7.3 hours while providing it's rated load of
2300W (roughly enough for 6 or 7 high-end desktops + 19" CRT
monitors).

>Why in the world do we always get so much off topic, I apologize for the
>current rant. I just heard about how Cindy Sheehan blames Katrina on Bush,
>also heard about some Democrats doing the same thing.
>http://www.steveyuhas.com/columns/yuhas_20050831.htm

While there is a reasonable amount of evidence (not conclusive, but
evidence none the less) to show that fossil fuel use can lead to
climate change that could bring about more/more severe hurricanes,
trying to tie any one even strictly to fossil fuel consumption is
ridiculous! Hurricanes happen, they always have and always will,
regardless of how much oil we use up. The number of them and their
severity might be tweaked slightly one way or the other due to CO2
emissions, but that sort of thing is EXTREMELY difficult to track as a
global average, let alone a single event.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Gnu_Raiz wrote:

> I have not heard of other countries stepping up and offering help, where
> are the French, and the Germans?

What do you expect France or Germany to do? Canada is a lot closer than
either; it's offered to help, but has received no requests so far.

Follow-ups set to misc.headlines.

--
Yves Bellefeuille
<yan@storm.ca>

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:42:07 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.09.01.03.22.30.264801@att.bizzzz...
>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:25:47 -0400, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, CJT wrote:
>
>>>> I guess you don't remember the power shortages in California a few years
>>>> back, which were credited in part to the rapid increase in computer use.
>
>>> The main cause for the power problems turned out to be Enron's fraud.
>
>> No, the main cause for both was government incompetence.
>
> There is enough blame to go around.
>
> What I can't stand though is when the government replaces one set of
> regulations with another, and then when the new regulations screw everything
> up, they blame it on the "deregulation". Here's a clue: if it's illegal to
> make long-term contracts, the market is regulated.

You do nothing but prove my point.

> The laws were designed to make the market more dynamic. They succeeded
> beyond the wildest dreams of those who drafted them.

Few politicians know anything about economics or capitalism (Jack Kemp
was one who did). They're by nature commisars living off the fat of the
land.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:56:36 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
>
> Anyone from New Orleans who wants to play the blame game need
> only look in the mirror to find someone to accuse. Its like
> someone badly hurt after running a stop light and getting
> broadsided: it is impossible not to feel sympathy for him and
> equally impossible not to recognize that he has only himself to
> blame.

Damn, Rob. You get it! ...or perhaps you don't want my endorsement. ;-)

> It has been known for hundreds, if not thousands, of years that that
> area is regularly battered by hurricanes, yet those people chose to
> build their homes and their businesses not only in a hurricane zone but
> in areas well below sea level in a hurricane zone ? It is one thing to
> gamble on a home or business on the gulf coast, but to compound the risk
> by choosing a location 20 feet below sea level is stupid beyond all
> belief.

It's a carnival town. It's very corrupt, by all accounts. Over
the past couple of days they've certainly shown that not all the snakes
have scales. Looting TVs when there is nothing to plug them in to?
Raping kids?

> I can empathize with but not fully agree with the idea that a higher
> degree of risk is acceptable to people tied to the oil industry in that
> area, but gambling with your life and everything you own in order to run
> a tourist trap or work in a Casino is simply unfathomable.

People risk their lives on oil rigs and coal mines. I don't really see
much difference. I do see the difference when civilization breaks down so
easily though. Rabid animals need to be shot.

<snip>

--
Keith

 

[keith]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:36:48 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125594960.838927.281670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Felger Carbon wrote:
>> > "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1125575609.833207.12110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > > The difficulty,
>> > > which you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge,
> is
>> > the
>> > > way that software is written.
>> >
>> > There will be a great day tomorrow yes there will be glory
> halleluja
>> > lookit all them sainted threads springing up in all directions yes
> sir
>> > tomorrow afternoon at 3:17PM. ;-)
>>
>> One way or the other, though, this is a hump we have to get over.
> It
>> may take an entire generation of single-threaded hackers to die out,
>> but sooner or later the von neumann bottleneck will be at most a
>> chapter in a textbook on introductory programming.
>
> Yes, sir! Right around that corner there there's threads galore,
> _tons_ of threads, threads as far as you can see. There'll be a great
> day tomorrow, yes there will. Of course, we have only one thread
> today but that's just temporary.

Dunno what the stupid programmers age going to do, but we hardware folk
are quite used to parallelism. Even our programming language(s) are
inherently concurrent. Though I'm sure the programmers screw it up
under the covers. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:56:36 +0000, Rob Stow wrote:
>
>>Anyone from New Orleans who wants to play the blame game need
>>only look in the mirror to find someone to accuse. Its like
>>someone badly hurt after running a stop light and getting
>>broadsided: it is impossible not to feel sympathy for him and
>>equally impossible not to recognize that he has only himself to
>>blame.
>
>
> Damn, Rob. You get it! ...or perhaps you don't want my endorsement. ;-)
>

And here I was sitting in my flame-proof suit ...

You are the first public "endorsement" I have gotten, but number
four overall.

Before today I had never gotten a single e-mail from anyone in
this newgroup, but today I got three e-mails that basically said
"I agree with what you said but I never would have said it in
public."


>
>>It has been known for hundreds, if not thousands, of years that that
>>area is regularly battered by hurricanes, yet those people chose to
>>build their homes and their businesses not only in a hurricane zone but
>>in areas well below sea level in a hurricane zone ? It is one thing to
>>gamble on a home or business on the gulf coast, but to compound the risk
>>by choosing a location 20 feet below sea level is stupid beyond all
>>belief.
>
>
> It's a carnival town. It's very corrupt, by all accounts. Over
> the past couple of days they've certainly shown that not all the snakes
> have scales. Looting TVs when there is nothing to plug them in to?
> Raping kids?
>
>
>>I can empathize with but not fully agree with the idea that a higher
>>degree of risk is acceptable to people tied to the oil industry in that
>>area, but gambling with your life and everything you own in order to run
>>a tourist trap or work in a Casino is simply unfathomable.
>
>
> People risk their lives on oil rigs and coal mines. I don't really see
> much difference. I do see the difference when civilization breaks down so
> easily though. Rabid animals need to be shot.
>
> <snip>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

keith wrote:

>
> Even our programming language(s) are inherently concurrent. Though I'm sure the programmers screw it up.

I don't understand why something like systemc isn't used as a
concurrent programming language (other than for hardware design).

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1125674258.815898.75610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tony Hill wrote:
> > >Why in the world do we always get so much off topic, I apologize for the
> > >current rant. I just heard about how Cindy Sheehan blames Katrina on Bush,
> > >also heard about some Democrats doing the same thing.
> > >http://www.steveyuhas.com/columns/yuhas_20050831.htm
> >
> > While there is a reasonable amount of evidence (not conclusive, but
> > evidence none the less) to show that fossil fuel use can lead to
> > climate change that could bring about more/more severe hurricanes,
> > trying to tie any one even strictly to fossil fuel consumption is
> > ridiculous! Hurricanes happen, they always have and always will,
> > regardless of how much oil we use up. The number of them and their
> > severity might be tweaked slightly one way or the other due to CO2
> > emissions, but that sort of thing is EXTREMELY difficult to track as a
> > global average, let alone a single event.
>
> And now to completely blow the on-topic factor out of the water (no pun
> intended), how about them Tragically Hip? Wrote a song about New
> Orleans sinking 15 years ago. What seemed like just a hit song with a
> wierd randomly-generated lyric topic, now seems like prophecy. You
> decide, ultra-hip alterna-rockers from the 80's/90's or prophets? 🙂
>
> New Orleans is Sinking lyrics:
> http://tinyurl.com/auqyn
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

The images are large, detailed, and depressing.


next to last and last shows most area

note the parts of various highways that disappear under water and come back up.

NOLA Sat Photos:

http://www.lakki.iki.fi/~oz/nola/new_orleans_surekote_levee_aug31_2005_dg..jpg
- 2.5M
http://www.lakki.iki.fi/~oz/nola/new_orleans_pshsuperdome_aug31_05_dg.jpg
- 3.9M
http://www.lakki.iki.fi/~oz/nola/new_orleans_chalmette_aug31_2005_dg.jpg
- 4.3M
http://www.lakki.iki.fi/~oz/nola/new_orleans_msi_aug31_2005_dg.jpg
- 3.3M
http://www.lakki.iki.fi/~oz/nola/new_orleans_msi_march9_2004_dg.jpg
- 4.6M


--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker joestateson@grandecom.net
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
=======================================================================

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> > As to the day when the average physics or biology graduate student
> > writes software with meaningful concurrency without depending on
> > libraries, that may take a while.
>
> And why should they? Those problems is often really linear, and
> compilers can see where to optimize, vectorize, and parallelize for
> better than the programmer. Particularly if the code is to be portable,
> because the next machine may want something else done.
>

Because the day is coming when almost everyone will be using a box with
multiple processors, I'm assuming that the day is coming when most code
will be written with multiple processors in mind, and that that's how
people will learn to code practically from day 1. That means I'm
assuming that, out of the current chaos of competing schemes, a style
of coding will emerge for multiple processors that is reasonably
portable.

RM